Case Name – X v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & ANR
Case Number – CRL.REV.P. 484/2024 & CRL.M.A. 20096/2024, CRL.M.A. 22133/2024, CRL.M.A. 10993/2024
Date – Thursday, Thirtieth Day of October, Two Thousand and Twenty Five
Quorum – Hon’ble Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
FACTS
The petitioner filed a petition under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (“JJ Act”), seeking to set aside the judgement dated 16.08.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 17/2023 titled Atma Ram v. State by Additional Session Judge -02, North – East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
The petitioner’s core contention was that the impugned judgement, delivered by a Court lacks jurisdiction under the JJ Act. The matter presented before the Appellant Court addressed the main issue of whether the petitioner, who was a child in conflict with the law, should be prosecuted as an adult.
Thus the petitioner depended on the statutory framework of the JJ Act, which provides that appeals from orders issued by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) or Child Welfare Committee (CWC) must be filed before the Children’s Court rather than an ordinary Sessions Court.
In Delhi, the Lt. Governor, with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of Delhi High Court, notified that Courts of Additional Sessions Judge – 01 at each Police District shall function as Children’s Court. But, in the present case, the appeal was decided by the Additional Sessions Judge – 02 who was not designated as a Children’s Court upon a report from the Principal District and Sessions Judge, North – East District under Section 2(20) of the JJ Act.
ISSUES
- Whether the Court of Additional Sessions Judge – 02, North – East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, had jurisdiction to hear an appeal under Section 101 of the JJ Act.
- Whether the lack of jurisdiction rendered the judgment dated 16.08.2023 void and liable to be set aside.
- Whether administrative or clerical oversight could justify or cure a jurisdictional defect.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Section 101(1) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – any person aggrieved by an order of the Committee or Board under the JJ Act may prefer an Appeal before the Children’s court.
- Section 2(20) of Juvenile Justice (Care and protection of Children) Act, 2015 – defines Children’s Court established under the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, or a Special Court under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.
- Section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – grants High Court the power of revision, allowing it to examine any order passed by a committee, Board, or Court to ensure its legality.
- Notification F. No. 61(6)/(State Commission)/A D-I/DWCD/2007/10197-223 dated 04.08.2010 – the Court of Additional Sessions Judge – 01 at each Police District shall act as Children’s Court the trial of offences against children or of violation of child right for the National Capital Territory of Delhi.
ARGUMENTS
Petitioner – The petitioner contended that under Section 101 of the JJ Act which states that the orders of the Juvenile Justice board can only be heard by the Children’s Court. Thus Additional Session Judge – 02 lacks jurisdiction to decide the appeal. Therefore the impugned judgement was invalid and void in the eyes of law. The petitioner also submitted that the judgement directed the petitioner be tried as an adult, despite JJB having declared him as a juvenile.
Respondent – The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) for the state did not dispute the submissions made by the petitioner’s counsel. The state accepted that the case had been assigned to a non – designated Court, that the Additional Sessions Judge – 02 was not a Children’s Court within the meaning of Section 2(20) of the JJ Act.
ANALYSIS
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court examined the statutory framework and the notifications issued under the JJ Act. The Court noted that in Delhi, Children’s Court had been notified that the appeals and the trials relating to offences against children and violations of the child rights be designated to Children’s Court having jurisdiction under Section 101 of the JJ Act.
Therefore the High Court observed that the Additional Sessions Judge – 02 lacked jurisdiction and thus the impugned judgment is void ab initio. The Court also held that the absence of jurisdiction had caused prejudice to the petitioner as he was directed to be tried as an adult rather than juvenile.
The Court also highlighted that even if the appeal was marked to the wrong court due to clerical or administrative error, it is the duty of the Presiding Officer of that Court to recognise and respect the statutory limits of jurisdiction.
JUDGMENT
The Delhi High Court set aside the impugned judgement dated 16.08.2023 on the ground that it lacked statutory jurisdiction. Therefore the Court of Additional Sessions Judge – 02 have no jurisdiction to hear and decide the appeal. The case thus was remitted to the competent Children’s Court, the Court of Additional Sessions Judge – 01, North – East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, for consideration and disposal of the appeal in accordance with law.
The Court also issued administrative directions to all Principal District & Sessions Judges in Delhi, to ensure that if any case is mistakenly marked to a court which has no jurisdiction, the judicial officer must immediately return it for reassignment.
CONCLUSION
This judgment shows a critical procedural safeguard under the juvenile Justice Act that the statutory jurisdiction must be strictly maintained. The Court highlights the importance of judicial discipline and administrative vigilance. It thereby upholds both the procedural integrity of the juvenile justice system and the rights of children in conflict with law.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY – SUSMITA ROYCHOWDHURY
Click here to read more: X v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
