In a landmark decision, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that a juvenile accused of offenses under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) must be tried in a Children’s Court, even if the offense is categorized as a scheduled offense under the NIA Act. Justice Sanjay Dwivedi delivered this ruling in response to a reference from the Bhopal District Judge, who sought guidance on whether a 17-year-old accused in a 2017 terror case should be tried in a special NIA court or a Children’s Court.
The case originated from an explosion in a train bogie in Shajapur town, Madhya Pradesh, in 2017. One of the accused, identified as a 17-year-old at the time of the incident, was charged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including criminal conspiracy, attempted murder, and sections of the UAPA and the Explosive Substances Act. Initially, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) registered the case and proceeded with the investigation. However, upon determining that the accused was a juvenile, the matter was referred to the Juvenile Justice Board.
The Juvenile Justice Board concluded that the accused was mentally and physically fit to stand trial as an adult. Consequently, the case was transferred to the Children’s Court, which had been notified by the state government for the speedy trial of such cases. The NIA, however, contended that since the offenses were scheduled under the NIA Act, the case should be tried in a special NIA court designated under the Act.
Justice Dwivedi examined the legal provisions, particularly focusing on the non-obstante clauses of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and the NIA Act. He noted that while the NIA Act provides for the establishment of special courts for scheduled offenses, it does not override the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act. Specifically, Section 1(4) of the Juvenile Justice Act states that the provisions of the Act shall have an overriding effect over any other law inconsistent with it.
The court emphasized that Section 18(3) of the Juvenile Justice Act mandates that if a Juvenile Justice Board determines that a juvenile between the ages of 16 and 18 has committed a heinous offense, the case must be transferred to the Children’s Court for trial. The court further observed that the NIA Act's non-obstante clause applies only to provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and not to other laws, including the Juvenile Justice Act.
Justice Dwivedi concluded that the Juvenile Justice Act, being a special legislation aimed at the care and protection of children, overrides the NIA Act in matters concerning the trial of juveniles. Therefore, the Children’s Court has the exclusive jurisdiction to try cases involving juveniles accused of offenses under the UAPA, even if such offenses are scheduled under the NIA Act.
This ruling underscores the primacy of the Juvenile Justice Act in matters concerning juveniles and reinforces the legal framework designed to protect the rights and welfare of children in conflict with the law. The decision also highlights the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that juveniles are treated in accordance with their age and maturity, providing them with an opportunity for rehabilitation rather than punitive measures.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court's judgment serves as a significant precedent, clarifying the jurisdictional boundaries between special legislation like the NIA Act and the Juvenile Justice Act. It reaffirms the principle that the welfare of the child is paramount and that legal provisions must be interpreted in a manner that aligns with this fundamental principle.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.