The Kerala High Court has recently provided significant clarification regarding the interpretation of 'willful neglect' under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. This provision addresses the punishment for cruelty to children, stipulating that any individual who has actual charge or control over a child and "assaults, abandons, abuses, exposes or wilfully neglects" the child in a manner likely to cause unnecessary mental or physical suffering is subject to legal penalties.
In a notable case, the prosecution alleged that a six-year-old resident of the Home for Mentally Deficient Children was assaulted and killed by four other inmates for urinating while sleeping. Investigations revealed that one of the attackers was an adult, and three other adults were residing in the institution. It was contended that the Multi-Task Providers and the superintendent of the home violated specific instructions by allowing adult inmates to stay with minors, leading to charges under Section 75 of the JJ Act. The superintendent sought to quash these charges, prompting the High Court's examination.
Justice C. Jayachandran observed that even if the superintendent had actual charge and control over the deceased, the element of 'willful neglect' was absent. The final report indicated a supervisory lapse, as the superintendent was unaware of the adults residing with the children. The court emphasized that 'willful neglect' implies deliberate or intentional neglect, not actions resulting from accident or inadvertence. Therefore, a mere supervisory lapse does not constitute an offense under Section 75 of the JJ Act.
This judgment underscores the necessity of intentionality in establishing 'willful neglect.' It differentiates between deliberate neglect and unintentional supervisory lapses, clarifying that the latter does not meet the threshold for criminal liability under Section 75. This interpretation ensures that individuals are not unjustly penalized for inadvertent actions lacking malicious intent.
The court's decision aligns with previous judgments emphasizing the importance of intent in cases under Section 75. For instance, in a prior ruling, the Kerala High Court held that a school principal's insistence on students wearing uniforms does not amount to cruelty under Section 75. The court reasoned that such disciplinary measures aim to maintain school discipline and do not cause unnecessary mental or physical suffering to the child.
In another case, the court granted pre-arrest bail to a man accused of abusing his minor grandson, highlighting that the offense under Section 75 requires the accused to have actual charge or control over the child. The court found that since the child was living away from the grandfather, the element of control was absent, and thus, Section 75 was not applicable.
These judgments collectively emphasize that for an act to constitute 'willful neglect' under Section 75 of the JJ Act, there must be a deliberate intention to neglect or harm the child. Unintentional actions or supervisory lapses without malicious intent do not meet the criteria for this offense. This interpretation protects individuals from unwarranted criminal charges arising from inadvertent actions, ensuring that only those with deliberate intent to harm or neglect children are held liable under this provision.
In conclusion, the Kerala High Court's interpretation of 'willful neglect' under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act emphasizes the necessity of intentionality in constituting the offense. This approach ensures that individuals are not unjustly penalized for inadvertent actions, maintaining a fair balance between protecting children's rights and safeguarding individuals from unwarranted criminal liability.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.