High Court of Kerala

Decided on 16-07-2019

Abhilash

Vs.

State of Kerala
Equivalents : 2019 (3) KLT 428 :: 2019 (3) KHC 1002 :: ILR 2019 (3) Ker. 305
:: 2019 (2) KLD 168

Headnotes
A. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Section 94
and Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 - Rule 12
–The date of birth entered in the school first attended by the child, has to be
treated as final and conclusive and no other material is to be relied upon, if
the same is available. ( Para 3 )
B. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Section 94
and Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 - Rule 12
and Kerala Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2014 -
Kerala Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2014 os
contrary to the 2007, Central Rules. Rule 19 of Kerala Rules is repugnant to
the Central Act and Rules and cannot be relied upon. ( Para 4 )

2019 ICO 424

High Court of Kerala

Decided on 08-03-2019

Sheeja Navas

Vs.

Child Welfare Committee & Anr

Equivalents : 2019 (2) KHC 354 :: 2019 (1) KLD 572 :: 2019 (2) KLT 421 ::
2019 (2) KLJ 434 :: ILR 2019 (3) Ker. 238
Headnotes
A. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Sections 31,
36, 3 and 2(14)(viii) - Whether any inference can be called for the order of
Child Welfare Committee, when the victim of sexual assault has been given
to the custody of Children’s home against the wishes of relative and child ?
Held; victim of a sexual assault is treated as ‘child in need of care and
protection’. Section 3 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act emphasizes that victim as well as her relatives should be heard
before taking a decision. When the child has attained the age of 15 years, her
wishes should be given due consideration. ( Paras 24, 25, 26 & 30 )
B. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Sections 3,
31 and 36 - The Welfare Committee shall evaluate the suitability of the
person to whom the custody is to be given, which has to be guided by the
fundamental principle envisaged under Section 3 of the Act and an inquiry
has to be conducted under Section 36 of the Juvenile Justice Act. The reason
given by the Child Welfare Committee that accused has access to the victim
in her house is unsustainable, when the victim is stationed in the children
home against her wishes. Committee has to give prime importance to the
wishes of the child ( Para 28 )

2019 ICO 327

Supreme Court of India

Decided on 25-02-2019

Union of India & Anr

Vs.

Ankur Gupta & Ors

Equivalents : AIR 2019 SC 1316 :: 2019 (3) KHC 286

Headnotes
A. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2016 - Sections
2(3), 58, 59 and 68(c) - Adoption Regulations, 2017 - Rules 21(1) and 41 -
Adoption — Application filed by Indian prospective adoptive parents living
in India — During the pendency of application for adoption, they acquired
US citizenship — Held, the application for adoption by said prospective
parents are invalid. The prospective parents are bound to follow statutory
procedure applicable for inter-country adoption. They may be given priority
in inter-country adoption, they being eligible overseas citizens of India (
Paras 14, 15 & 16 )

2018 ICO 2598

High Court of Kerala

Decided on 05-12-2018

Jeshy C O & Ors

Vs.

Union of India & Ors

Equivalents : 2019 (1) KHC 348 :: 2019 (1) KLT SN 57 (Case No. 76)

Refers to :-
2003 ICO 1442004 ICO 9172003 ICO 4711995 ICO 1821984 ICO 3391954 ICO
1171954 ICO 1361963 ICO 2681971 ICO 8591986 ICO 11721995 ICO
24172010 ICO 782009 ICO 25802012 ICO 11332014 ICO 1572015 ICO
6102016 ICO 17552015 ICO 2768
Headnotes
A. Juvenile Justice (Care And Protection Of Children) Act, 2015 - Section 57
and Adoption Regulations, 2017 - Regulation 5(g) - The Regulation forms a
part of the prescription of eligibility to adopt and High Court would not be
justified in examining the reasons for the individual criteria framed by the
Authority which is vested with the power to frame such guidelines. ( Para 9 )
B. Juvenile Justice (Care And Protection Of Children) Act, 2015 - Section 57
and Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 - The adoption of a child in
need of care and protection or a juvenile in conflict with law or an
abandoned child in terms of the Act, 2015, the provisions of the said Act and
the guidelines made there under prevail over any provision of any personal
law on the subject. ( Para 5 )
C. Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 - The Act, 1956 governs only
voluntary adoptions by known parents to known and specified adoptive
parents with full willingness on both sides. ( Para 5 )

2018 ICO 2468

High Court of Allahabad

Decided on 17-07-2018

Justice Jahangir Jamshed Munir

Rohit

Vs.

State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors

Case Numbers : Crl. Rev. No. 310 of 2018

Equivalents : 2019 Cri LJ 375

Refers to :-
2003 ICO 9942007 ICO 4507
Headnotes
A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 439 and Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Section 12 – If a primafacie
case is established against the accused that would have led to denial of the
bail to an adult offender, in that case also section 12 of the Act mandates that
bail is to be granted to a child in conflict with law, except where his case falls
under any of the disentitling categories contemplated by proviso ( Paras 10
& 11 )
B. Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 14; Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 – Section 439 and Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Act, 2015 - Sections 12 and 101 - It is not that bail may be denied to a child
against whom there is no prima facie case, because his case is placed under
any of the disentitling provision- such a construction would lead to violation
of Article 14 of the Constitution. ( Para 12 )
C. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Section 101
– Jurisdiction of a court of an appeal and that of a court exercising original
jurisdiction are different - A court of appeal has to have the approach of a
review of what the court of first instance has done. It should consider the
objections of the parties and reasons for approval or disapproval of the
judgment. ( Para 18 )

2018 ICO 660

High Court of Kerala

Decided on 05-06-2018

Justice R Narayana Pisharadi

Vs.

State of Kerala

Case Numbers : B.A. No. 3320 of 2018

Equivalents : 2018 (3) KHC 223 :: 2018 (2) KLD 54 :: 2018 (3) KLT SN 12
(Case No.14) :: 2018 (3) KLJ 319 :: ILR 2018 (3) Ker. 161

Refers to :-
1978 ICO 1061980 ICO 1771983 ICO 491950 ICO 411962 ICO 1912010 ICO
16282012 ICO 14772017 ICO 29542017 ICO 2958
Headnotes
A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 – The expression
'anticipatory bail' is a convenient mode of conveying that it is possible to
apply for bail in anticipation of arrest. The concepts of personal liberty and
freedom arerecognised in the provision contained in Section 438 of the Code.
Section 438 is a procedural provision which is concerned with the personal
liberty of the individual who is entitled to the benefit of the presumption of
innocence. ( Para 10 )
B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 and Juvenile Justice
(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Section 12(1) - Anticipatory
bail to a child in conflict with law - There is no provision in the Act, which
either expressly or by necessary implication, excludes the applicability of
Section 438 of the Code. The Act does not contain any special provision
dealing with granting of anticipatory bail to a child in conflict with law.
Where no special provision is made under the Act with regard to any
particular matter, the provision contained in the Code in that regard shall be
applicable. ( Para 22 )
C. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 - Anapplication for
anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code atthe instance of a child in
conflict with law is maintainable before the High Court or the Court of
Session. ( Para 25 )
D. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 - Whilegranting
anticipatory bail to a child in conflict with law, the courtshall not impose
conditions which are violative of, or not inconformity with, the provisions of
the Act. The court shall notimpose conditions which are against the object
and spirit of theAct. Therefore, the court shall not direct the child in conflict
with law to appear in the police station. ( Para 26 )