The Calcutta High Court has made a significant ruling by quashing all proceedings against a juvenile in conflict with law, who was allegedly driving a car with a 'Judge' board and a blue beacon. This decision underscores the court's commitment to a compassionate approach under the Juvenile Justice Act, prioritizing the welfare of the child over rigid technicalities.
Court's Emphasis on Juvenile Welfare
Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, while hearing the plea, highlighted that the Juvenile Justice Act is a welfare legislation. The court stressed that courts should be zealous in ensuring juveniles derive full benefits from the Act's provisions. In its order, the court stated, "Courts must avoid a rigid or overtly technical approach and instead favour the conclusion that the person is a child." This principle guided the decision to quash the case, reflecting a focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment.
Details of the Alleged Incident
The juvenile was accused of driving a four-wheeler in a rash and negligent manner in November 2023, without a valid driving license. The car featured a blue beacon on top and a board with 'Judge' written on it placed on the dashboard. It was reported that the vehicle belonged to the juvenile's grandfather, a judge who retired 18 years ago. The incident involved violations such as driving on the wrong side of the road, which prompted a sergeant to attempt to stop the car due to safety concerns.
Legal Grounds for Quashing the Case
The court based its decision on several key factors under the Juvenile Justice Act:
- The alleged offences are petty in nature, with a maximum punishment of three years' imprisonment.
- The inquiry should have been completed within four months from the juvenile's first production before the Juvenile Justice Board, extendable by two more months with recorded reasons.
- In this case, the inquiry was not concluded within the statutory timeframe, and no valid reasons were recorded for the extension, violating the Act's objective of speedy proceedings to minimize legal complexities for juveniles.
Advocate Sekhar Basu, representing the juvenile, argued for quashing the proceedings due to this delay, while the state's advocate Bibaswan Bhattacharya opposed it. The court sided with the defense, emphasizing the Act's aim to restore and rehabilitate juveniles in mainstream society.
Broader Implications and Cautions
While advocating for a generous interpretation of the Juvenile Justice Act to benefit children, the court also issued a caution. It warned that the protection and privileges under the Act should not be misused by unscrupulous individuals to escape punishment for serious offences. This balanced approach ensures that the welfare focus does not compromise justice in more severe cases.
The ruling reinforces the importance of timely legal processes and child-centric perspectives in juvenile justice, setting a precedent for similar cases in India.
