X MINOR THR FATHER NATURAL GUARDIAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is a 12 year old victim in case FIR No. 04/2009 under Section 376/342 IPC registered at PS Neb Sarai. On registration of FIR, an inquiry for age determination of Respondent No.2 was conducted and Respondent No.2 was found to be juvenile at the time of committing the alleged offence. Thus, an enquiry was conducted by the Juvenile Justice Board-II. The proceedings in the inquiry qua Respondent No.2 culminated on 8 th July, 2011, however the Petitioner is not aware of its final outcome. The Petitioner was orally informed that Respondent No.2 was found to have committed the offence and was directed to be placed in the special home for the period he had already undergone, which, according to the Petitioner, is around 2 to 3 months. The Petitioner filed an application before the Juvenile Justice Board seeking certified copy of the order dated 8 th July, 2011 so that she could exercise her right of appeal/ revision against the said order. Learned Juvenile Justice Board vide impugned order dated 11 th July, 2011 declined the request of the Petitioner to give a certified copy of the order dated 8 th July, 2011 in view of the fundamental principles laid down in the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2000 as amended in 2006 and the Delhi Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2009 (in short 'the JJ Act' and 'the JJ Rules' respectively). Thus, the Petitioner is before this Court by way of the present revision petition filed under Section 53 of the JJ Act.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that Section 21 of the JJ Act prohibits publication of any report of an inquiry disclosing the name, address or school or any other particulars calculated to lead to the identification regarding a juvenile in conflict with law or a child in need of care and protection in any newspaper, magazine, news-sheet or visual media. Sub-Section 2 to Section 21 prescribed that any person who contravenes the provisions of sub-section (1) shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to twenty five thousand rupees. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the prohibition of publication to keep the confidentiality of a juvenile is not a bar in providing of the certified copy of inquiry to a victim/aggrieved person, who has a fundamental right to pursue the legal remedies available to her. Even Section 51 of the JJ Act only directs that the report of the probation officer or social worker considered by the competent authority shall be treated as confidential. Further Rule 3(2)(XI) of the JJ Rules provides that the right of privacy and confidentiality shall be protected by all means and through all the stages of proceedings. According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner privacy and confidentiality provided under the subrule does not take away the statutory right of the Petitioner to avail of her legal remedies, as in the absence of the impugned judgment, the Petitioner cannot even decide as to what remedy, if any, is available and whether she has to avail the said remedy. According to the learned counsel, even Rule 99 of JJ Rules which provides that the records or documents in respect of juvenile in conflict with law or child shall be kept in safe custody for a period of 7 years and no longer, and thereafter be destroyed, does not bar the same to be given to an aggrieved party. The provisions of the JJ Act relating to appeals and revision i.e. Sections 52 and 53 of JJ Act would become redundant in the absence of the copy of the order being available to the aggrieved party. Further Section 54 of the JJ Act provides that while holding any inquiry appeal or revision proceedings under this Act, the procedure as far as practicable applied will be in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Thus, in accordance with Section 363 Cr.P.C. a copy of the judgment is required to be provided to the Petitioner.

(3.) According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the decision of the Juvenile Justice Board cannot be the final step in the legal hierarchy and the rights available to a victim, who is also a minor, cannot be made nugatory. It is submitted that JJ Rules cannot override the provisions of JJ Act wherein no prohibition is laid down to supplying of the copy of the order to the victim/ aggrieved person. The Act does not provide for the confidentiality of the order or judgment of the Court. Section 52 JJ Act bars only an appeal against acquittal and appeals against all other orders are permitted. Thus, a person aggrieved of the orders passed for rehabilitation of the juvenile in conflict with law can file an appeal before the Court of Sessions and thereafter a revision petition before the High Court. Section 53 JJ Act enables this Court to examine the legality or propriety of the orders passed by the Juvenile Justice Board. Section 15 of the JJ Act provides for the order that may be passed regarding juvenile. As per the proviso to Section 15(1)(g) the Board for the reasons to be recorded, if it is satisfied that having regard to the nature of the offence and circumstances of the case, it is expedient so to do, can reduce the period of stay to such period as it thinks fit. Thus, in the present case, as informed, since the period of stay at special home has been reduced to the period undergone, it has to be for the reasons recorded in writing. The Petitioner being the aggrieved party has every right to know the said reasons and challenge the same. Further the reasons being justiciable are subject to review/ revision by a Superior Court. Relying upon Krishan Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 1992 AIR(SC) 1789it is contended that the legislature will not take away from one hand what it gave with the other. Thus, the principle of harmonious construction should be applied and the Rules relating to privacy and confidentiality cannot be used to make the right of appeal and revision nugatory. Further in case the Juvenile Justice Board has come to the conclusion that the juvenile in conflict with law has been found to have committed a lesser offence, then the Petitioner herein has a right to file a statutory appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. In any case, a revision against the propriety and legality of the order is maintainable before this Court. It is contended that the Act makes no distinction between providing of a final order or interim order. Though orders on age determination are being provided by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, however the final judgments are not being provided to the victim and thus distinction is being made by the Juvenile Justice Boards, which distinction is not provided in the Act. Thus, the petition be allowed and the Juvenile Justice Board be directed to supply the Petitioner certified copy of the order dated 8 th July, 2011 so that the Petitioner can avail of the legal remedies as per law.