Supreme Court of India Judgements

46660 Judgements hosted as on 19/11/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Juvenile Justice

Juvenile Justice

Plea of juvenility has to be raised in a bonafide and truthful manner. If the reliance is on a document to seek juvenility which is not reliable or dubious in nature, the appellant cannot be treated to be juvenile keeping in view that the Act is a beneficial legislation – Appellant cannot be given benefit of juvenility – HELD birth certificate issued by corporation or municipal authority or a panchayat is a relevant document to prove the juvenility -Appeal dismissed.

Feb 26, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MANOJ @ MONU @ VISHAL CHAUDHARY — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian,…

Juvenile Justice

Juvenile – HELD The age recorded by the Committee or the Board to be the age of the person so brought before it shall for the purpose of the JJ Act, 2015 be deemed to be the true age of the person. The deeming provision in sub-section (3) of section 94 of the JJ Act, 2015 is also significant inasmuch as the controversy or the doubt regarding the age of the child brought before the Committee or the JJ Board is sought to be set at rest at the level of the JJ Board or the Committee itself – Appeal dismissed

Nov 21, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RISHIPAL SINGH SOLANKI — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and B.V. Nagarathna,…

Juvenile Justice

No adoption of affected children should be permitted contrary to the provisions of the JJ Act, 2015 – Invitation to persons for adoption of orphans is contrary to law as no adoption of a child can be permitted without the involvement of CARA – Stringent action shall be taken by the State Governments/Union Territories against agencies / individuals who are responsible for indulging in this illegal activity

Jun 21, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH IN RE CONTAGION OF COVID 19 VIRUS IN CHILDREN PROTECTION HOMES ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Aniruddha Bose, JJ. ) SMW (C) No.…

Juvenile Justice

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000- In all cases where the accused was above 16 years but below 18 years of age on the date of occurrence, the proceedings pending in the court would continue and be taken to the logical end subject to an exception that upon finding the juvenile to be guilty, the court would not pass an order of sentence

Oct 18, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SATYA DEO @ BHOOREY — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ. )…

Juvenile Justice

Death Penalty Cannot Be Imposed By Giving Retrospective Effect To POCSO Amendment To An Offence Committed Prior To Amendment HELD “The punishment of not being released till his last breath is punitive enough to send a signal to the society and it cannot be that only the death sentence can send a right signal”

Jun 17, 2020 sclaw

Death Penalty Cannot Be Imposed By Giving Retrospective Effect To POCSO Amendment To An Offence Committed Prior To Amendment: SC [Read Order] Mehal Jain 17 Jun 2020 12:08 PM “The…

Juvenile Justice

A Child In Conflict With Law Cannot Be Kept In Jail Or Police Lockup At Any Circumstances: SC HELD “We make it clear that the Juvenile Justice Boards are not meant to be silent spectators and pass orders only when a matter comes before them. They can take note of the factual situation if it comes to the knowledge of the JJBs

Feb 12, 2020 sclaw

A Child In Conflict With Law Cannot Be Kept In Jail Or Police Lockup At Any Circumstances: SC [Read Order] Akshita Saxena 12 Feb 2020 5:13 PM “We make it…

Juvenile Justice

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Section 2(33) – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 304 – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 – Sections 2(k), 2(l), and 15 – Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 – Section 2(h) – Offences Prescribing Max Sentence Of More Than 7 Years But Not Providing Minimum Sentence Are Not ‘Heinous Offences’, But ‘Serious Offences’

Jan 9, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHILPA MITTAL — Appellant Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, JJ.…

You missed

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 376 and 313 — Rape — False promise of marriage — Physical relationship with the complainant under the false promise of marriage, leading to her pregnancy and subsequent abortions — Whether the FIR should be quashed based on the allegations and the delay in filing the complaint — The petitioner argued that the relationship was consensual and the delay in filing the FIR undermines the credibility of the allegations — The respondent claimed that the petitioner deceived her with a false promise of marriage, leading to non-consensual physical relations — The Supreme Court quashed the FIR, noting the long-term consensual relationship and the lack of prima facie evidence for rape under Section 376 IPC —The Court emphasized the delay in filing the FIR and the nature of the relationship, which appeared consensual —The Court referred to previous judgments, highlighting the importance of prima facie evidence and the misuse of legal provisions —The FIR and all proceedings based on it were quashed, preventing abuse of the legal process.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B —Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) — Financial misconduct and conspiracy — Whether the High Court was correct in discharging the respondent from the charges of conspiracy and financial misconduct — The CBI argued that the High Court conducted a mini-trial at the charge-framing stage and that there was sufficient suspicion to frame charges against the respondent — The respondent’s counsel argued that the material in the charge sheet did not make out a case against the respondent and that the High Court rightly discharged him —The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to discharge the respondent, stating that mere suspicion was not enough to frame charges – The Court found that the respondent’s role was limited to signing the memorandum prepared by senior officers and participating in the Management Committee meeting, which approved the proposal — The Court emphasized that the proposal had passed through various committees and that the respondent’s actions did not amount to criminal misconduct — The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was discharged from the charges — The trial against other accused persons will continue.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Municipal Laws

Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951 — Sections 146, 423 and 488(1) — The Patna Municipal Corporation imposed a royalty on advertisements, which was later increased — The respondents challenged this imposition, arguing it was a tax without legislative backing — Whether the royalty imposed by the Corporation was a tax and if it was legally enforceable without legislative sanction — The Corporation argued that the royalty was agreed upon by the parties and was not a tax — They contended that the enhancement of the rate was within their rights — The respondents argued that the imposition was a tax, which required legislative sanction, and the Corporation had no authority to levy it — The Division Bench quashed the enhancement, ruling that the Corporation had no power to impose the tax without legislative backing — The Court found that the royalty was not a tax but a fee agreed upon by the parties — It held that the Corporation’s actions were within the scope of the agreement — The Court distinguished between royalty and tax, emphasizing that royalty is based on an agreement, not statutory provision — The Court upheld the imposition of royalty as per the agreement but noted that the enhancement in rates was not challenged effectively — The judgment of the Division Bench was set aside.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Constitution

Citizenship Act, 1955 — Section 6A — Special provisions as to citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord — The case involves the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955, which grants citizenship to certain migrants from Bangladesh to Assam —The main issues include whether Parliament had the legislative competence to enact Section 6A, and if Section 6A violates Articles 6, 7, 14, 29, and 355 of the Constitution — Petitioners argue that Section 6A is unconstitutional as it conflicts with Articles 6 and 7, adopts unreasonable cut-off dates, and violates Articles 14, 29, and 355 — Respondents contend that Section 6A is within Parliament’s legislative competence under Article 11 and does not violate the Constitution — The judgment addresses the legislative competence of Parliament, the reasonableness of cut-off dates, and the impact on Assamese cultural identity — The court examines the historical context of citizenship provisions, the legislative intent behind Section 6A, and the scope of judicial review under Article 14 — The court analyzes the constitutional provisions on citizenship, the legislative objective of Section 6A, and the balance between legislative intent and constitutional mandates —The court concludes that Section 6A of the Citizenship Act is constitutional and does not violate the cited Articles of the Constitution.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw