HC to suo motu hear appeals against juveniles set free by JJB

The Bombay High Court has suo motu
Decided to hear appeals against the order of the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), Pune, which disposed of 82 cases in a single day on September 16 last year by releasing juveniles on probation after recording the plea of their guardians although they had attained majority.
"Suo motu revision applications (appeals) shall be numbered separately in all the 82 cases and notices thereof be issued only to those juveniles in conflict with law who were let off on probation. Notice shall be also issued to the state government," observed Justices A S Oak and G S Patel.

The bench called for all the records and posted the appeals for hearing after three months.
"We are constrained to observe that in these 82 cases, there is a complete non-application of mind by the Juvenile Justice Board. In fact, passing such orders in mechanical manner amounts to doing violence to the provisions of the said Act which is enacted for a special purpose," said the judges.
"The orders based only on the basis of plea of guilt of the guardians of juveniles who had already attained majority are null and void. Such a manifest illegality cannot be tolerated by this court.

"We will be failing our duty if we allow such orders to stand. Therefore, there is no option but to exercise Suo Motu power of revision under Section 53 of the said Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act," the bench observed in a recent ruling.
The bench noted that 130 other cases were disposed of on the same day (September 16, 2012) by Juvenile Justice Board on the basis of a plea of guilt by juveniles. If any plea was to be recorded in accordance with provisions of the said code, before recording the plea, particulars of accusations against the juvenile are required to be read over and explained.

"The orders do record that the particulars were read over. After reading over the particulars, the plea has to be recorded. The Juvenile Justice Board was required to satisfy itself that the plea was voluntary and deserves acceptance. The Board was also required to hear the juvenile in conflict with law before passing final order. Only after doing this, orders could have been passed," the bench said.