IDUKKAN Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Children are our national asset. It is, therefore, the responsibility of everyone to ensure the dignity, safety and wellbeing of the children. It is, all the more, of vital importance that the human rights of the children are fully protected. The Children who come into conflict with law emerge as law breakers due to factors like poverty, hunger, social discard, environmental influence in the educational institutions, lack of care by parents and so on. The society shall approach them with compassion to channelize them to the mainstream of the society. Providing fair enquiry (trial) to such juvenile in conflict with law itself is a fundamental right and in other words, a human right. Such children have a right to express their defence freely. Alleging that fair enquiry has not been provided, the Petitioner/juvenile in conflict with law has come up with this Original Petition seeking for transfer of the proceedings from Juvenile Justice Board, Chennai. The facts of the case would be as follows:

(2.) When this Petition came up for hearing before the Vacation Court on 31.5.2012, a learned Judge of this Court (Mrs. Aruna Jagadeesan, J.) granted interim stay till the second week of June, 2012. Thereafter, the matter was periodically adjourned by the learned Magistrate. Now, the regular XII Metropolitan Magistrate has taken charge as the designated Principal Magistrate of the Juvenile Justice Board.

(3.) In this Petition, the main contention of Mr. R. Shanmugasundaram, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner is that the proceedings were not conducted strictly adhering to the Act and the Rules framed thereunder in as much as several provisions have been grossly violated and the enquiry was not fair. Thus, according to the Petitioner, the trial has been conducted by denying fair opportunity to the Petitioner, which is a part of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has listed out all the flaws, irregularities and illegalities committed by the Board, in order to substantiate his contention that it would not be in the interest of justice to allow the enquiry to be further held by the very same Board.