Respondent (Uoi)

TEAM C
SMT. VELAGAPUDI DURGAMBA SIDDHARTHA LAW COLLEGE

1STALL INDIA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2015
IN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF

HINDUSTAN
THE WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF CONSTITUTION OF

HINDUSTAN
WRIT PETITION NO: ____/ 2015

CASE CONCERNING THE AGE OF JUVENILE DELINQUENTS
CHILD RIGHTS ADVOCACY FOUNDATION

PETITIONER
v.
THE REPUBLIC OF HINDUSTAN

RESPONDENT
SUBMISSION TO THE HONORABLE SUPREME COURT OF HINDUSTAN
MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT

REPUBLIC OF HINDUSTAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS.II
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.III
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.V
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTIONX
STATEMENT OF FACTSXI
STATEMENT OF ISSUES.XIII
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTSXIV
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED.1
SUBMISSION TO THE HONBLE COURT..XVI
II
~MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT~
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
All India Report

And
Another
Article
AIR
&
Anr.
Art.
Corporation
Et Cetera
Fundamental Rights
Corp.
Etc
FRs
Honorable
Indian Law Institute
Integrated Child Protection Scheme
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act,2000
Limited
Madhya Pradesh
Honble
ILI
ICPS
JJCPA
ltd
M.P.
Maximum
Max.
Minimum
Min.
National Crime Rate Bureau
NCRB
National Human Rights Commission

Number
Others
Page
Public Interest Litigation
Section
NHRC
No.
Ors
Pg.
PIL
Sec.
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Cases
Supreme Court Judges Library
SC
SCC
SCJL
Through
Thr.
Union of India
United Nations
UOI
UN
III
United States
Uttar Pradesh
Versus
U.S.
U.P
v.
Volume
West Bengal
Vol.
W.B.
IV
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
U.N CONVENTIONS
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 Entered into force on March 23, 1976
International Covenant on Economic Social Cultural Rights, 1966 Entered into force on Jan 3,
1976
United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Administration of Juvenile Justice, 1985 (Beijing
Rules)
Convention on the Rights of Child, 1989, Entered into force on 2.9.1990
United Nations Guidelines for Prevention of Juvenile delinquency (Riyadh Guidelines), 1990
United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juvenile deprived of their liberty, 1990.
Guidelines for Action on Children and Criminal Justice System, Vienna, 1997
STATUTES
Constitution of India
Indian Penal Code,1860
The Children and Young Persons Act,1963
Code of Criminal Procedure,1973
The Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention Act,1974
The Protection of Human Rights Act,1993
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) act,2000
Youth Criminal Justice Act,2003
Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection) Rules,2007
JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS
CASE
CITATION
Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari V. State Of

Maharashtra & Anr.
Ajahar Ali V. State Of West Bengal
Amar Singh And Ors. Etc. Vs. The State Of
Bihar And Ors. Etc
Ameerunnissa Begum V. Mahboob Begum
Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation Vs.
M/S GAR Re-Rolling Mills And Anr.,
Apparel Export Promotion Council V. A.K.
Chopra,
Ashok Kumar Thakur V. Union Of India
(2011) 11 SCC 214
FOOTNOTE
NO.
42
(2013) 10 SCC 31
[2007] 2 BLJR 2575
46
10
AIR 1953 SC 91
AIR 1994 SC
57
20
AIR 1999 SC 625
45
AIR 2008 SC 1
60
V
Bajoria v. The State Of West Bengal

Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit
Budhan Choudhary v. The State Of Bihar
Chiranjitlal Chowdhri V. The Union Of India
D.S. Nakara & Others v. Union Of India
Dhananjoy Chatterjee @ Dhana v. State Of West
Bengal
Dr. B Singh V. Union Of India
Dr. B.K. Subbarao v. Mr. K. Parasaran,
Dr. Duryodhan Sahu And Others. v. Jitendra
Kumar Mishra And Others.
G.B. Mahajan v. Jalgaon Municipal Council
Gopal Singh v. State Of Uttarakhand,
Hazara Singh v. Raj Kumar
Janta Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary
Jitendra Ram @ Jitu v. State Of Jharkhand
AIR 1953 SC 404

1988 Supp SCC 604
AIR 1995 SC 191
AIR 1951 SC 41
AIR 1983 SC 130
(1994) 2 SCC 220
50
84
50
50
49
47
AIR 2004 SC 1923

1996 Indlaw SC 977
AIR 1999 SC 114
16
21
21
[1991] 2 AIR 1153 (SC)

2013 (3) SCC 444
(2013) 9 SCC 516
AIR 1993 SC 892
AIR 2006 SC 1993
K.R. Srinivas v. R.M. Premchand,
(1994) (6) SCC 620
11
75
52
14,15
83
18
Kazi Lhendup Dorji v. Central Bureau Of (1994) Supp (2) SCC 116
Investigation
Kusum Lata v. Union Of India
(2006) 6 SCC 180
M.C. Mehta V. Union Of India
AIR 2004 SC 4618
Mohd. Ajmal Mohd. Amir Kasab v. State Of (2012) 9 SCC1
Maharashtra
Ramjas Foundation v. Union Of India
AIR 1993 SC 85
Ramprasad Narain Sahi v. The State Of Bihar
AIR 1953 SC 215
18
Ravinder Singh Gorkhi v. State Of U.P

(2006) 5 SCC 584
S.R. Bommai v. UOI,
AIR 1994 SC 1918
Sachinand Pandey v. State Of West Bengal
AIR 1987 SC 1109
Shailesh Jasvantbhai v. State Of Gujarat
(2006) 2 SCC 359
Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S. R. AIR 1958 SC 538
Tendolkar
Stanford V. Kentucky
492 U.S. 361 (1989)
State Of Bihar v. Bal Mukund Shah
AIR 2000 SC 1296
State Of Himachal Pradesh v. Dharam Pal
(2004) 9 SCC 681
87
11
6
69, 74
56
State Of Himachal Pradesh v. Students Parent AIR 1985 SC 910

Medical College Shimla
13
State Of Madhya Pradesh v. Bablu

State Of Madhya Pradesh v. Surendra Singh
AIR 2015 SC 102

2014 Indlaw SC 768
31
31
State Of Maharashtra v. Prabhu,
1994 (2) SCC 481
20
17
11
68
18
57
40
7
46
VI
State Of U.P. v. Shri Kishan

State Of West Bengal & Ors. V. Committee For
Protection Of Democratic Rights, West Bengal
& Ors
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union Of
India
The State Of Bombay v. F. N. Balsara
The State Of Gujarat And Another v. Shri
Ambica Mills Ltd.
Thompson V. Oklahoma
V. M. Syed Mohammad & Company v. The
State Of Andhra
Vishakha v. State Of Rajasthan
X Minor Thr. Father Natural Guardian V. State
AIR 2005 SC 1250

AIR 2010 SC 1476
69
8
(2006) 6 SCC 180
19
AIR 1951 SC 318

(1974) 4 SCC 656
50
50
487 U.S. 815 (1988)

1954 (1) SCC 117
40
50
AIR 1997 SC 3011

2012 Cr LJ 4368
44
73
BOOKS
BAKSHI P.M., The Constitution of India, 10th Edition,2012, Universal Law Publishing Co
BASU DD, Commentary on the Constitution of India, Vol.-10,8th Edition, 2012, LexisNexis,
ButterworthsWadhwa
JAIN M.P., Indian Constitutional Law, 6th Edition, 2010, LexisNexis, ButterworthsWadhwa
PANDEY J.N., The Constitutional Law of India, 48th Edition, 2013 ,Central Law Agency
SHUKLA V.N., Constitution of India, 11th Edition,2012 Eastern Book Co
SIDDIQUE, Ahmad ,Criminology problems and perspectives. 3rd edition, 1993, Eastern Book
Company
SINGH, R K, Juvenile delinquency in India, The Universal Publishing Ltd.,1998
TANENHAUS, David S., Juvenile justice, Oxford Uni. Press, New York, 2004
RANI, KUMKUM, Commentaries on the juvenile justice act, 1986,Alia Law Agency, 2001
BRANDT, DAVID, Delinquency, development, and social policy, Yale University Press,
London, 2006
CHOUDHARY, R .N., Law relating of juvenile justice in India, Orient Publishing Company,
Allahabad, 2005
RICHARD E.REDDING, Juvenile Deliquency, Oxford Uni. press,New York,2005
ARTICLES
BALAKRISHNA, P , Juvenile Justice Act 1986 certain ambiguities in implementation a
critical study, Vol. 104, Criminal Law Journal,p.174, Nov. 1998
BALLAV DAS, Hrudaya, Changing concept to rights of child & juvenile justice, Human Rights
Year Book, p 141,2009
BEDI, M S ,Coordination among juvenile justice functionaries, Vol. 16, Journal of Indian Law
Institute, p 8-14, Jan- Jun 1995
VII
BURROW, John, Reverse waiver and the effects of legal, statutory and secondary legal factors
on sentencing outcomes for juvenile offenders ,Vol. 54,Crime & Delinquency, NHRC Journal, p
34, Jan 2008
BUTTS, Jeffrey A & BUCK, Janeen, Sudden popularity of teen courts,Vol. 41,N Supreme Court
Judges Journal, p 29, Winter, 2002o
CHOUDHARY, D P, Promoting co-ordination within the implementation of juvenile justice act:
Problems and remedies, Vol. 110,Part 1256,Criminal Law Journal, p 225, August 2004
DAM, Shubanker,Juvenile at eighty, Journal of Indian Law Institute, Vol. 48, No. 2, April June
2006, p 232) (ILI)
DAVIS, Carle P, At-risk girls and delinquency: Career pathwary, Vol. 53,No.3Crime &
Delinquency, NHRC Journal, p 408, July 2007
DILLON, Rank R, Exploring the roles of parental monitoring of peers on relationship between
family functioning and delinquency in the lives of African, American and Hispanic adolescent.
Vol. 54,No.1,Crime & Delinquency, NHRC Journal, p 65, Jan 2008
DUCAN, Martha Grace ,So young and so untended: Remorseless children and the expectations
of the law, Vol. 102,Columbia Law Review, p 1469, Oct 2002
GUBA, R K, Juvenile justice certain inadequacies in law and enforcement, Vol 100,Criminal
Law Journal, , p 46, June 1994
HARRISON, Paige & MAUPIN, James R, Teen court: An examination of processes and
outcomes, Vol. 47, Crime & Delinquency, NHRC Journal, p 243, April 2001
JAAMDAR, S, Bringing justice to juveniles: Extension of poverty alleviation programmes, Vol.
30,Economic & Political Weekly, p 1833
JADHAV, Mary Clubwala, Legislation for juvenile delinquency in India, Vol. 5,CBI Bulletin, p
23,1997
JAYARAM, C, Juvenile delinquency and law, Vol. 75 Social Defence, p 22,1984
KADRI, H A, Juvenile justice: Care and protection of children act-2000: An overview Vol.
110,Criminal Law Journal, p 225, July 2004
KHURSHID, Hasan, Juvenile delinquency Vol. 2 ,Nyaya Kiran, , p 50, Oct Dec 2008
LEIBER, Michael J & JOHNSON, Joseph D, Being young and black: What are their effects on
juvenile justice decision making Vol. 54,Crime & Delinquency, NHRC Journal, p 277,oct 2008
MALHOTRA, Saurabh, Juvenile justice system,Vol. 107,Criminal Law Journal, p 2-7, Jan 2001
OMAJI, P , Custodial sentencing in Australias juvenile justice system, Vol. 37,Journal of
Indian Law Institute, p 483, October December 1995
PANDA, B P, Rights of child juvenile delinquency and administration of justice,Vol. 1 Supreme
Court Journal, p 31, Feb 1996
PANDE, B .B., Implications of the linkages between juvenile destitution labor and delinquency
for juvenile justice in the contemporary Indian society,Vol. 14,Delhi Law Review, p 61,1992
PAVAL, K C, Juvenile justice: Victim of system,Vol. 44,Gujarat Law Reporter, ,p 157,
November 2003
PULLMANN, Michel D, Juvenile offenders with mental health needs: Reducing recidivism
using wraparound, Vol. 52,Crime & Delinquency, NHRC Journal, p 375,january 2006
RAHA, SWAGATA,Exploring community as a resource in the treatment of delinquency, Vol.
32, Indian Socio-Legal Journal, p 133,2006
VIII
RAHA, SWAGATA, Treatment of juveniles in conflict with law: Legal framework and the
judicial response, Vol. 110, Criminal Law Journal, p J152, May 2004,
RAI, Ram Bhajan, World inquiry in the juvenile justice act 1986 a source of confusion and
misapplication, Vol. 105 ,Criminal Law Journal, p 49, April 1999
RATHI, B K, Juvenile justice. (Care and protection of children) act 2000: Does it require a
fresh look, Vol. 109,Criminal Law Journal, , p 229, Aug 2003
RAZDAN, U, Apex court towards humanizing the administration of juvenile justice,Vol.
33,Journal of Indian Law Institute, p 366, July- September 1991
REDDY, C Sheela, Dimensions of juvenile crime: An Indian perspective, Vol. 7,South Asia
Politics, p 29-35, Aug 2008
REDDY, S SRINIVAS, Juvenile justice: Not a childs play,Vol. 6,Andhra Law Times, p 2832,2008
RICKARD, Erika, Paying lip service to the silenced: Juvenile justice in India, Vol. 21,Harvard
Human Rights Journal, p 155, Winter 2008
SANGHI, G L, Children and the law, Law & Justice, NHRC Journal, p 71,2001
SARAN, KARTIKEYA, Juvenile justice : Protecting the Child in need of care and
protection,Vol. 114,Criminal Law Journal, p 277- 83, October 2008
SAXENA, Shaba ,Legal changes to curb youth criminality Vol. 3,Supreme Court Journal, p 35,
November 1999
SINGH, P K, Juvenile justice (Care and protection of children) act, 2000: An enlightened step
for tackling the child prostitution ,Vol. 31, Indian Bar Review, p 407-12, July-Dec 2004
TIBATEMWA-EKIRIKUBINZA, Lillian Juvenile justice and the law in Uganda: Towards
restorative justice, Human Rights in Development Yearbook, p 291,2003
VED KUMARI, Current issues in juvenile justice in India, Vol. 41, Journal of Indian Law
Institute, p 392, July- Dec 1999
VED KUMARI, Quagmire of age issues under the juvenile justice act: From inclusion to
exclusion,Vol. 51,Journal of the Indian Law Institute, p 163, April June 2009
VED KUMARI: Relevant date for applicability of the juvenile justice act., Vol 6,Supreme Court
Cases (Journal),p 9,2009
DYNAMIC LINKS
www.scconline .com
www.westlaw.com
www.manupatra.com
www.judis.nic.in
www.jstor.org
IX
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
CASE CONCERNING THE AGE OF JUVENILE DELIQUENTS
CHILD RIGHTS ADVOCACY FOUNDATION
..Petitioner
v.
THE REPUBLIC OF HINDUSTAN
..Respondent
The counsel for respondent has responded to the petition filed by petitioner under the epistolary
jurisdiction of the Honble Supreme Court of Hindustan by the way of public interest litigation
under Art.321of constitution. The respondent most humbly submit themselves to the jurisdiction
of Honble court & shall bound by all orders, directions that this Honble court may pass in
exercise of the power conferred in its entirety& good faith.
All of which is most respectfully submitted.
32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part.-(1) The right to move the Supreme Court by
appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.(2) The Supreme
Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus,
mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of
the rights conferred by this Part.(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (1)
and (2), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction all or
any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall
not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Background facts: The Republic of Hindustan is a country which is almost similar in

population, geographical area, historical heritage, crime rate and culture as that of the Republic
of India. Similarly, the Constitution of Hindustan and other prevailing domestic laws are in
parimateria with the Republic of India, except in regard to the reduction of the age of juveniles.
The Constitution of Hindustan contained various beneficial provisions for promoting and
protecting the rights and interests of children. The Parliament of Hindustan enacted and put in
place a law by name The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 with the
laudable object of engendering welfare and wellbeing of juveniles. The print and electronic
media in the Republic of Hindustan had blown out of proportion the incidents of offences of
rape, murder, kidnapping, and similar such offences committed by juveniles against the girl child
& women delineated a juvenile as a person not attaining the age of his/her 18th year of age. The
survey shockingly and stupendously disclosed that a considerable number of such offences are
committed against women by juveniles.
Amendment in JJ(Care & Protection) Act, 2000: Consequently, the said Amendment was
successfully made to the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000. The said Amendment clearly provided that
any juvenile in between the age of 16 to 18 years commits any offence of rape, murder,
kidnapping, abduction and offences of such analogous nature then such offender shall be treated
as an adult offender only. Resultantly, the punishment awarded would be the same like in the
case of the adult offenders in similar such offences by treating the juveniles on par with the adult
offenders. the lowering of the age of juveniles in regard to serious offences against women was
imperative in the light of early maturity and precocity of the child in the era of globalization,
easy access to crime and pornography in the internet and increasing incidents of rape, murder,
kidnapping etc., committed by juveniles in every succeeding year, to add more deterrence to the
existing law and changing face of juvenile laws across the world.
XI
Petition filed by Child right Advocacy Foundation under Article 32 of the Constitution in the
Supreme Court of the Republic of Hindustan challenging the Amendments made to the Juvenile
Justice (Care & Protection) Act, 2000.
XII
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1. WHETHER THE PETITIONER HAS LOCUS-STANDI TO FILE THE PRESENT
PETITION?
1.1 Whether the present petition detracts from the Constitutional principle of separation of
powers?
1.2 Whether the petition have been filed mala fide for the sake of publicity?
2. WHETHER THE CONTENTION ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONER THAT THE
IMPUGNED AMENDMENT IS AGAINST THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANTS,
CONSTITUTIONAL IDEALS, CORE PRINCIPLES OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND
ESTABLISHED JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS IS LEGALLY TENABLE?
2.1 Whether the amendment is commensurate with international covenants and other
obligations?
2.2 Whether the amendment is honoring the core principles of justice, equality and
Constitutional ideals?
3. WHETHER THE CONTENTION ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT THAT
LOWERING OF THE AGE OF JUVENILES IN THE LIGHT OF SURVEY FINDINGS
& EARLY PRECOCITY OF CHILD IS LEGALLY SUSTAINABLE?
3.1 Whether the amendment is in line with brooding national statistics and studies?
3.2 Whether the amendment is made in considering essential psychological aspect of children
involved?
4. WHETHER THE IMPUGNED AMENDMENT DEHUMANIZES THE CRIMINAL
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AS CONTENDED BY THE PETITIONER?
4.1 Whether the amendment dehumanizes the administration of justice to victims?
4.2 Whether the amendment increases the criminal activities by terrorists or gangs ?
XIII
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1) WHETHER THE PETITIONER HAS LOCUS-STANDI TO FILE THE PRESENT
PETITION?
1.1 The present petition detracts from the Constitutional principle of separation of powers:
Doctrine of separation of powers has expressly and impliedly enshrined under constitution of
Hindustan, policy making and its implementation are conventionally regarded as the
exclusive domain of the Executive and the Legislature. The said amendment is made in
accordance with the set procedure established by law without any ground of violation
1.2 The petition have been filed mala fide:
The petition has been filed by petition with malafide intention, the petitioner under cloak of
unscrupulous busy body, having no interest expect personal gain of earning public eye and
get exemplary monetary funding. The said amendment doesnt violate any rights of children.
2) WHETHER THE CONTENTION ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONER THAT
THE IMPUGNED AMENDMENT IS AGAINST THE INTERNATIONAL
COVENANTS,
CONSTITUTIONAL
IDEALS,
CORE
PRINCIPLES
OF
JUVENILE JUSTICE AND ESTABLISHED JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS IS

LEGALLY TENABLE?
2.1 The amendment is commensurate with international covenants and other obligations:
The said amendment doesnt violate any of the international covenants as there is no
international obligation upon the state which explicitly renders the age of juvenile conflict
with law as 18 years. Further, Republic of Hindustan is mere signatory to U.N Convention on
the rights of children and has not ratified it.
2.2 The amendment is honoring the core principles of justice, equality and constitutional
ideals:
As time is not static, so the law cant be stand still, yet the said amendment is need of the
hour as the graph of heinous crime against the women is showing the upward trend. The law
makers to curb the rise of gruesome crime rate and deter the juveniles to further commit
crime has made a reasonable classification which has reasonable nexus to achieved taking the
consideration of justice, equality and ideals of established act and judicial precedents.
XIV
3) WHETHER THE CONTENTION ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT THAT

LOWERING OF THE AGE OF JUVENILES IN THE LIGHT OF SURVEY FINDINGS
& EARLY PRECOCITY OF CHILD IS LEGALLY SUSTAINABLE?
3.1 The amendment is in line with brooding national statistics and studies:
The said amendment is in accordance with the statistics and survey findings as the crime
committed by juvenile has significantly increased also the neuroscience studies are general and
probabilistic in nature due to which aspect of intent which differs from case to case cannot be
evaluated.
3.2 The amendment is made in considering essential psychological aspect of children involved:
Adolescent mature intellectually before they mature socially or emotionally. Puberty is now
kicking in at an earlier age, addictive substances also adversely affect brain development and
maturation in the areas related to motivation, judgment and self control. A child of age 16 with
his exposure to internet, mass media and firearms is as much aware and informed as an adult and
there is not much possibility of reforming such accused. Therefore, the said amendment is at par
in todays global society.
4) WHETHER THE IMPUGNED AMENDMENT DEHUMANIZES THE CRIMINAL
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE AS CONTENDED BY THE PETITIONER?
4.1 The amendment is done to provide justice to the victim and deter the criminals:
The amendment has been bought forth in order to cater justice to the victims of the crimes by the
acts of juveniles and to deter the juveniles further from indulging in any criminal activity.
4.2 The amendment is done to keep a check on use of juveniles by the terrorists, gangs etc.:
With the high rise in the involvement of juveniles in terrorist and anti-state activities, the said
amendment is a measure to control the use of juveniles by the Crime syndicates who are taking
due advantage of the juvenile age and increasingly involving younger boys in heinous crimes and
keeping them in the forefront, knowing fully well that they cannot be punished.
XV
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
1. Whether the petitioner has locus-standi to file the present petition?
Respondent humbly submits before this Honble court that petitioner has no locus-standi to file
the present petition under the Article 322 of the constitution. Law and order exist for the purpose
of establishing justice and when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured
dams that block the flow of social progress. The said amendment under JJCPA, 2000 is
stemming from the need to ensure public safety and provide justice to victims. There cannot be
any dispute on the societys need to be safe, and juvenile crimes need to be prevented. Statistics
do certainly reveal an increasing trend in the rate of crime by juvenile in the country. A study of
crime rate in the past decade shows that the even though the percentage of juvenile crime
compared to total crime has increased by a mere 0.7% over a span of 10 years, the percentage of
juveniles committing the offence of rape
has increased by
an alarming 53%.3
Time is not static. Time Changes and therefore, the life of a nation is not static, but dynamic;
living and organic; its political, social and economic condition change continuously. It is,
therefore, quite possible that an act which drafted in one era and in a particular context may be
found inadequate in another era and another context. The ideas upon which an act is based in one
generation may be spurned as old fashioned in the next generation. It thus becomes necessary to
amend the act time to time.
Our constitution empowers the legislature to make the law as per the dynamic society. The said
amendment is therefore valid as legislature always makes laws which cater needs of its people
and always act upon the will of society. At present when there is upward trend in heinous crimes
committed by juvenile delinquents the said amendment tries to curb crime rate by treating
juvenile between 16-18 year as adult offenders, to provide them sniffer punishments and protect
the society from outrage of barbarous crimes committed by them. The said amendment is valid
and the petition is not maintainable on following ground:
Ibid
NCRB, Crimes in India, chapter 5, Report on crime against women,2013, at www.ncrb.gov.in, last accessed on 72-2015.
3
1.1 Detracts from the Constitutional principle of separation of powers

The framers of our Constitution did not incorporate a strict doctrine of separation of powers
but envisaged a system of checks and balances. Policy making and its implementation are
conventionally regarded as the exclusive domain of the Executive and the Legislature. The
power of judicial review cannot be used by the court to usurp the powers of other organs. For
instance, Article 53(1)4 expressly vests the executive power of the union in the President, and
Article 505 clearly states that the State should take necessary steps to separate judiciary from
the executive. Separation of Power is one of the basic features of the our Constitution, it
has also been stated under Indian constitution, which has been rightly declared by the
Supreme Court of India in the matter of Sachinand Pandey v. State of West Bengal6 as per
Khalid,J."if the constitution of India has stood the test of 42 years of existence, it is because
the three pillars of democracy has by and large respected the jurisdiction of each other,
instances of conflict between the have been rare, State of Bihar v. Bal Mukund Shah.7
Today, the doctrine of separation of powers has strong footing in the constitutional
jurisprudence in India. State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Committee for protection of
Democratic Rights, West Bengal & Ors8, : It is trite that in the constitutional scheme
adopted in India, besides supremacy of the constitution, the separation of powers between the
legislature, the executive and the judiciary constitutes the basic features of the Constitution.
Balancing a double-edged Sword The power of the Court to entertain any circumstance that
may hinder societal growth, or may cause hardship to a class of individuals is not
uninhibited. It is carefully regulated with tight reins, and cases of public interest are taken up
only after rigorous scrutiny. The said amendment has been cautiously passed by the law
makers for the National growth. As said by Pandit Nehru that they have made the
Art.53. Executive power of the Union.-(1) The executive power of the Union shall be vested in the President and
shall be exercised by him either directly or through officers subordinates to him in accordance with this
Constitution.
5
Art.50. Separation of judiciary from executive.-The State shall take steps to separate the judiciary from the
executive in the public services of the State.
6
AIR 1987 SC 1109
7
AIR 2000 SC 1296
8
AIR 2010 SC 1476
Constitution of India flexible so that it will help in growth of nation.9 The provision for
amendment of Constitution is given while making the Constitution so that in future when
required to change it, an amendment can be made by the legislature that is representatives of
the people. Also, judicial review has certain inherent limitations. In Amar Singh and Ors.
Etc. v. The State of Bihar And Ors. Etc10, it was held The power of judicial review of
legislative Acts vested in the High Courts and Supreme Court must be exercised with
wisdom, and restraint and not in a spirit of cold war between Parliament, or State
Legislatures and courts. Non-interference with the view of the majority in Parliament with
regard to what is reasonable and interference with what is prohibited by the Constitution may
perhaps, be harmonious path for the future. It is suited more for adjudication of disputes
than for performing administrative functions. It is for the executive to administer the law and
the function of the judiciary is to ensure that government carries out its duty in accordance
with the provisions of the Constitution.11 The amendment enacted by the respondent are
within the Constitutional limits and the executive has carried out its functions acc. to the
provisions of the Constitution.
1.2 No PILL for ILL

It is submitted that, as rightly said by Soli Sorabjee that PIL is not a pill for every ill therefore
petitioner doesnt have any locus standi. Respondents want to contend that petitioner are trying
to obstruct this process and are working under mala fide. PIL should not be used to grind a
personal axe12 This Honble court has itself cautioned that PIL is a weapon which has to be used
with great care and circumspection and public grievance should not encroach upon the rights and
powers reserved by the constitution to the executive and the legislature13 PIL gives the right to
locus standi to any member of the public who is working under bona fide but who is not a mere
DD Basu , Commentary on the Constitution of India, 8th Edition, LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur
2012,p 11260
10
[2007] 2 BLJR 2575
11
S.R. Bommai v. UOI, AIR 1994 SC 1918;G.B. Mahajan vs. Jalgaon Municipal council [1991] 2 AIR 1153 (SC),
M.C. Mehta v. UOI, AIR 2004 SC 4618
12
Jain.M.P.,Indian Consitutional Law,7th Edition,Lexis Nexis,2014
13
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Students Parent Medical College Shimla, AIR 1985 SC 910
busy body or a meddlesome interloper.14 Dominant object of PIL is to ensure observance of the
provisions of constitutions or the law which can be achieved to advance the cause of community
by permitting any person, having no personal gain or private motivation or any other oblique
consideration but acting bona fide and having sufficient interest in maintaining an action for
judicial redress.15 In Dr. B Singh v. Union of India16,the Supreme Court held that in admitting
PILs the Court has to take into account the two important points, viz.(i) Nobody should indulge
in wild and reckless allegation besmirching the character of others; and (ii) Avoidance of public
mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions filed for oblique motives, justifiable executive
actions. Public Interest Litigation which has now come to occupy an important field in the
administration of law should not be "publicity interest litigation" or "private interest litigation" or
"politics interest litigation" or the latest trend "paise income litigation".17 There must be real and
genuine public interest involved in the litigation and not merely an adventure of knight errant
borne out of wishful thinking18. It is needless to emphasis that the requirement of locus standi of
a party to litigation is mandatory, because the legal capacity of the party to any litigation whether
in private or public action in relation to any specific remedy sought for has to be primarily
ascertained at the threshold.19The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be
used for suspicious products of mischief.
Courts must do justice by promotion of good faith, and prevent law from crafty invasions.
Courts must maintain the social balance by interfering where necessary for the sake of justice
and refuse to interfere where it is against the social interest and public good.20No litigant has
a right to unlimited draught on the Court time and public money in order to get his affairs
settled in the manner as he wishes. Easy access to justice should not be misused as a license
14
Janta Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, AIR 1993 SC 892

Ibid, para 68
16
AIR 2004 SC 1923.
17
Kusum Lata v. Union of India (2006) 6 SCC 180
18
Kazi Lhendup Dorji vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (1994) Supp (2) SCC 116;Ramjas Foundation vs.
Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 85; K.R. Srinivas v. R.M. Premchand, (1994 (6) SCC 620
19
T.N. Godavarman thirumulpad v. Union of India ,(2006) 6 SCC 180
20
State of Maharashtra vs. Prabhu, 1994 (2) SCC 481; Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation vs. M/s GAR
Re-Rolling Mills and Anr., AIR 1994 SC 2151
15
to file misconceived and frivolous petitions.21

In S.P. Gupta v. Union of India22, it was emphatically pointed out that the relaxation of the
rule of locus standi in the field of PIL does not give any right to a busybody or meddlesome
interloper to approach the Court under the guise of a public interest litigant. It has also left
the following note of caution:
"But we must be careful to see that the member of the public, who approaches the court in
cases of this kind, is acting bona fide and not for personal gain or private profit or political
motivation or other oblique consideration. The court must not allow its process to be abused
by politicians and others to delay legitimate administrative action or to gain a political
objective."
The above filed petition is prima facie malafide, the petitioner under cloak of unscrupulous
busy body, having no interest expect personal gain of earning public eye and get exemplary
monetary funding. They came before this Honble court in glare of publicity by filing
vexatious and frivolous petition wearing the mask of public interest .The said amendment
doesnt violate any of fundamental rights and ideals of constitution it has been passed by the
competent pillar of democracy under the head of its legislative power. The said amendment
is a reasonable classification done by our law makers with the nexus to curb the upward
crime trend committed by young juvenile offenders of brutal nature against the women and
society as whole.
2. Whether the contention advanced by the petitioner that the impugned Amendment is
against the International covenants, constitutional ideals, core principles of juvenile justice
and established judicial precedents is legally tenable?
The respondents humbly submits before this Honble court that contention advanced by the
petitioner that the impugned Amendment is against the International covenants, constitutional
21
Dr. B.K. Subbarao vs. Mr. K. Parasaran, 1996 Indlaw SC 977, Dr. Duryodhan Sahu and Others. v. Jitendra Kumar
Mishra and Others. AIR 1999 SC 114
22
AIR 1982 SC 149,para 23
ideals, core principles of juvenile justice and established judicial precedents is not legally
tenable.
Mere facial gender neutral laws and policies cannot deny what has perceptively called
..differential access to justice faced by women seeking to engage with the legal system..23
Violence against society has a dual characteristic and is an offence under the principles of
penology but, more importantly, it is a direct constitutional violation. The number of
constitutional violations in our country assumes great importance as they have a bearing upon the
true meaning of democracy, the true meaning of republic, and the true meaning of social justice.
In the context of women, and in the context of persons with disabilities, the role of the State as a
guarantor of fundamental rights in respect of the latter, the role of the State as Parens Patriae is
fundamental to the Constitution.
A fortiori, the duty of the State, therefore, is to provide a safe environment, at all times,
especially for women, who constitute half the nations population; and failure in discharging this
public duty renders it accountable for the lapse. Crimes against society are an egregious violation
of several human rights demanding strict punishment with deterrence blushed to prevent similar
crimes in future by the likeminded. The said amendment is passed by competent lawmakers who
caters to needs of its people and fulfill all its obligations rendering the ideals of natural justice to
all. The said amendment is in conformity with core principles of international conventions,
constitution ideals and object of juvenile justice; this can be expounded below:
2.1 In accordance with established international conventions
The South African law defines equality as both de jure and de facto equality. It has provided
that:
Equality includes the full and equal enjoyment of rights and freedoms as contemplated in the
Constitution and includes de jure and de facto equality and also equality in terms of the
outcomes.24
23
Report of Verma Committee on Amendments To Criminal Law, pg. no. 65 at http://nlrd.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/01/121798698-Justice-Verma-Committee-report.pdf, last accessed on 15-2-2015.
Similarly, when any heinous crime is committed by a juvenile, the consequences of such acts are
disastrous and brutal in nature and by providing immunity through JJCPA, 2000 to the offender
is unjust towards the victim.
Rule 1.225 of the Havana Rules, 199026 provide that a juvenile should be deprived of his/her
liberty only as a measure of the last resort limited to exceptional cases and for the min. necessary
period. Even then, detention should be in such a manner and in conditions that respect the human
rights of juveniles (Rule 1227).
Rule 11(a)28 of the Havana Rules, 1990 define a juvenile as every person under the age of 18,
and allow national laws to determine a min. age below which such person will not be detained.
Further under Rule 1929 of the UN Standard Min. Rules for the administration of Juvenile
Justice30 aims at restricting institutionalization in quantity and in time it lays down that the
placement of juveniles in an institution
Shall always be a disposition of last resort, which implies that treating juveniles as adult
offender is not restricted by UN Standard Min. Rules also.
and for the min. necessary period,

one of the prime objectives of criminal law is the imposition of adequate, just,
proportionate punishment which commensurate with gravity, nature of crime and the
24
Ibid para39
Juveniles should only be deprived of their liberty in accordance with the principles and procedures set forth in
these Rules and in the United Nations Standard Min. Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (The Beijing
Rules). Deprivation of the liberty of a juvenile should be a disposition of last resort and for the min. necessary
period and should be limited to exceptional cases. The length of the sanction should be determined by the judicial
authority, without precluding the possibility of his or her early release.
26
Havana Rules were adopted by General Assembly resolution 45/113 of 14 December 1990.
27
The deprivation of liberty should be effected in conditions and circumstances which ensure respect for the human
rights of juveniles. Juveniles detained in facilities should be guaranteed the benefit of meaningful activities and
programs which would serve to promote and sustain their health and self respect, to foster their sense of
responsibility and encourage those attitudes and skills that will assist them in developing their potential as members
of society.
28
A juvenile is every person under the age of 18. The age limit below which it should not be permitted to deprive a
child of his or her liberty should be determined by law.
29
Rule 19-The placement of a juvenile in an institution shall always be a disposition of last resort and for the min.
necessary period.
30
Often referred to as the Beijing Rules, is a resolution of the United Nations General Assembly regarding the
treatment of juvenile prisoners and offenders in member nations, was adopted on 29 November 1985 by the United
Nations General Assembly
25
manner in which the offence is committed31, it can also be implied that in case of heinous
crimes the min. period should be decided on the basis of the gravity of the case and
punishment should not be restricted to 3 years for rehabilitation, as it can neither restore
the criminal nor the victim.
Further, Art. 1932 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)33 implies that state
have an authority to take appropriate action to protect the interest of the society as a whole by
protecting rights of both victim and the juvenile who commits heinous crimes by keeping
juvenile under care with any other person, and where any other person can be inferred as
imprisonment of the juvenile keeping in mind the maturity level of the offender.
Under Art.14(d) of The Declaration on Elimination of Violence against Women34, it is
provided that:
.State should pursue by all appropriate means and without delay a policy of eliminating
violence against women and, to this end should develop penal, civil, labor and administrative
sanction and domestic legislation to punish and redress wrongs caused to women...
Also our country alike government of India has made the commitment at the Fourth World
Conference in Beijing35 to formulate and operationalize a national policy on women, which
will continuously guide an informed action at every level and at every sector, so inspite of
making offender centric, government need to make victim centric laws as by providing immunity
to the young criminals in the name of protection of child rights are actually infringing the rights
of the victim as a women and the society as whole. Victim's plight cannot be ignored even when
31
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bablu, AIR 2015 SC 102; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Surendra Singh,2014 Indlaw
SC 768
32
Art. 19 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) mandates that the State shall take all appropriate
legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child in all respects, while in the care of
parents etc. or any other person
33
The UN General Assembly adopted the Convention and opened it for signature on 20 November 1989. It came
into force on 2 September 1990, after it was ratified by the required number of nations.
34
The Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women was adopted without vote by the United Nations
General Assembly in its resolution 48/104 of 20 December 1993.
35
Fourth World Conference on Women, action for Equality, Development and Peace was the name given for a
conference convened by the United Nations on 415 September 1995 in Beijing, China.
a crime goes unpunished for want of adequate evidence.36 State is under the obligation to protect
the rights of women and the said amendment is a step towards it, which is appreciated by various
other nations like California Proposition 2137, enacted by voter initiative, which lowered the
age for transfer from 16 to 14 and shifted discretion for making transfer decisions from juvenile
court judges to prosecutors (Gang Violence & Juvenile Crime Prevention Act, 2000).
Art. 40 of the U.N. Convention38 provides that a child who has been accused of having violated
the penal law shall have the following guarantees:
to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law,
to be informed promptly of the charges against him
And, to have legal or other appropriate assistance in the preparation of his defense, to
have the matter determined without delay by a competent and impartial authority or
judicial body, not to be compelled to confess guilty, and to examine witnesses.
Moreover, the state can establish a min. age below which children shall be presumed not to have
the capacity to infringe the penal law. In short, the U.N. Convention does not prohibit
prosecuting a child under 18 who has committed an offence under the regular penal laws.
Rule 17 of the Beijing Rules39, in turn, provides that the reaction shall be in proportion to the
circumstances and the gravity of the offence as well as the circumstances and needs of the
juvenile as well as the needs of society. Furthermore, personal liberty may be deprived if the
juvenile is adjudicated guilty of a serious offence involving violence against another person or
persistence in committing other serious offences. Unlike the U.N. Convention, the Beijing Rules
do not fix 18 as the age of a juvenile. Instead, the Beijing Rules provide for rules applicable to
persons between the age of 7 and 18.
36
Manohar Singh v State of Rajasthan and others, 2015 Indlaw SC 31
37
Proposition 21 of California's laws: Juveniles 14 years of age or older charged with committing certain types of
murder or a serious sex offense, under Prop 21, are generally no longer eligible for juvenile court and prosecutors
are allowed to directly file charges against juvenile offenders in adult court for a variety of circumstances without
having to get the permission of juvenile court to do that.
38
39
Supra note 7
Supra note 4
Therefore, countrys international legal obligations do not prohibit it from amending the JJCPA,
2000 to provide that persons between the age of 16-18 who are accused of rape, kidnapping and
abduction of women and girls will be exempted from the jurisdiction of the JJB and tried in the
adult criminal justice system.
Comparing the position in USA and the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act,
1974, reliance is placed on the common law age of 7 in fixing the age of criminal responsibility,
the lowest being 6 years in North Carolin. The general practice in the United States of America,
however, is that even for such children, the courts are entitled to impose life sentences in respect
of certain types of offences, but such life sentences without parole were not permitted for those
under the age of eighteen years convicted of murder or offences involving violent crimes and
weapons violations. It was contented that min. age for death penalty is set at 1640.
Also in England and Wales, Section 16(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1963, the
min. age of criminal responsibility is 10 years and those below the said age are considered to be
doli incapax and, thus, incapable of having any mens rea, which is similar to the provisions of
Section 82 and 83 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
In France no criminal charge can be brought against a child up to the age of ten years; and for
child between ten to thirteen years of age, only educational penalties such as placing in a
specialized Centre or home are to be given, while between thirteen to sixteen years of age,
minors will get only half of the adult sentence. Lastly, between sixteen to eighteen years of age,
person would be remanded to Criminal Court and plea of juvenility can be set aside.
In Canada there is Youth Criminal Justice Act, 2003, where the age of criminal responsibility
has been fixed at 12 years and Section 13 of the Criminal Code of Canada, is in pari materia with
the provisions of Section 8341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. In fact, according to the Criminal
Justice Delivery System in Canada, a youth between the age of 14 to 17 years may be tried and
40
Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815 (1988); Stanford v. Kentucky 492 U.S. 361 (1989)
41
Section 83 in The Indian Penal Code- Act of a child above seven and under twelve of immature understanding.
Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age and under twelve, who has not attained
sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion.
10
sentenced as an adult in certain situations. Even in Canada the Youth Criminal Justice Act
governs the application of criminal and correctional law to those who are twelve years old or
older, but younger than 18 at the time of committing the offence, and that, although, trials were
to take place in a Youth Court, for certain offences and in certain circumstances, a youth may be
awarded an adult sentence.
Also in, Michigans Juvenile Waiver Law passed in 1997; juveniles can automatically be tried
as adults.
The juvenile who commits crime of high gravity should not be left to walk free after serving
max. of 3 years that too in special home. It is high time that the law should be amended on the
same footing of countries like U.S, U.K etc where a juvenile is also tried in a criminal court
depending on the gravity of the offence committed by the minor. It was submitted by the SC in
the Bombay Blasts Case42, that, juvenile who was tried and convicted along with adults under
the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act (TADA), was denied the protection of the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, on account of the serious nature of the
offence, it was noted that paragraph 4 of the 1989 Convention did not make any reference to
age.43
Therefore it can be said that the JJCPA, 2000 law had exceeded its mandate by blindly adopting
eighteen as the upper limit in categorizing a juvenile or a child, in accordance with the Beijing
Rules, 1985, and the U.N. Convention, 1989, without taking into account the socio-cultural
economic conditions and the legal system for administration of criminal justice in our country.
1.2. In accordance with core principles of equality, justice and constitutional ideals
Some of basic values and objectives that provide basis and direction to Governmental policy
decisions are
Justice:
42
Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari v. State Of Maharashtra & Anr. (2011) 11 SCC 214, point 10
The United Nations Standard Min. Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (The Beijing Rules) Rule4.
Age of criminal responsibility- 4.1 In those legal systems recognizing the concept of the age of criminal
responsibility for juveniles, the beginning of that age shall not be fixed at too low an age level, bearing in mind the
facts of emotional, mental and intellectual maturity.
43
11
The message of socio-economic justice mentioned in the preamble of our Constitution

has been translated into several Articles enshrined in part-III and part- IV of the
Constitution. Therefore, the said amendment is in the light of justice.
The right to be protected from sexual harassment and sexual assault44 is, guaranteed by the
Constitution, and is one of the pillars on which the very construct of gender justice stands. 45
Also, the offence of an attempt to commit rape is a serious offence, as ultimately if translated
into the act leads to an assault on the most valuable possession of a victim i.e. character,
reputation, dignity and honour, any attempt to misbehave or sexually assault a woman is one of
the most depraved acts. The courts cannot take lenient view in awarding sentence on the ground
of sympathy or delay, as this is no ground for reduction of sentence.46
The courts must not only keep in view the rights of the criminal but also the rights of the victim
of crime and the society at large while considering imposition of appropriate punishment.47
Equality:
Art. 1448 permits reasonable classification and must fulfill the following two
conditions49:1. The classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes
persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group.
2. The differentia must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the
Act.
44
Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011

Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra, AIR 1999 SC 625.
46
Ajahar Ali V. State of West Bengal, (2013) 10 SCC 31; State of Himachal Pradesh v. Dharam Pal, (2004) 9 SCC
681
47
Dhananjoy Chatterjee @ Dhana v. State of West Bengal, (1994) 2 SCC 220
48
The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the
territory of India.
49
D.S. Nakara & Others v. Union Of India, AIR 1983 SC 130
45
12
Where the court finds that the classification50 satisfies the tests, the court will uphold the validity
of the law. A classification is over-inclusive when it includes not only those who are similarly
situated with respect to the purpose but also others who are not so situated.51
The classification/definition for all juvenile offenders up to the age of 18 years, providing
blanket cover/protection against all and every offence committed, unmindful of the
(i)
nature and gravity of the offence52
(ii)
actual age and mental maturity level of juvenile offender
(iii)
socio-economic background of the juvenile
(iv)
nature and character of the juvenile
(v)
rights of the victim of offence committed by the juvenile and
(vi)
taking away of the judicial discretion in totality and absolutely in case of offence
committed by the juvenile, is highly irrational and has no reasonable nexus to the
objective sought to be achieved and is contrary to and in violation of the Art. 1453 and
2154 of the Constitution and is accordingly, unconstitutional.
It was reiterated that it was unconstitutional to place all juveniles, irrespective of the
gravity of the offences, in one bracket. It is urged that Section 2(l)55 of the JJCPCA, 2000, ought
not to have placed all children in conflict with law within the same bracket, it is submitted that
the same is ultra vires Art. 21 and Art. 14 of our Constitution.
A statute may direct its provisions against one individual person or thing or to several individual
persons or things but, no reasonable basis of classification may appear on the face of it or be
50
Bajoria v. The State of West Bengal, AIR 1953 SC 404, ;Budhan Choudhary v. The State of Bihar AIR 1995 SC
191;Chiranjitlal Chowdhri v. The Union of India AIR 1951 SC 41, ;V. M. Syed Mohammad & Company v. The
State of Andhra 1954 (1) SCR 117, ;The State of Bombay v. F. N. Balsara AIR 1951 SC 318
51
The State Of Gujarat And Another v. Shri Ambica Mills Ltd., (1974) 4 SCC 656
52
Hazara Singh v. Raj Kumar, (2013) 9 SCC 516
53
Ibid 23
54
Protection Of Life And Personal Liberty-No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except
according to procedure established by law.
55
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires- "juvenile in conflict with law" means a juvenile who is alleged
to have committed an offence;
13
deductible from the surrounding circumstances, or matters of common knowledge56. In such a

case the court will strike down the law as an instance of naked discrimination57.
The Constitution embraces the substantive equality approach as provided in Art. 15(1)58 and Art.
15(3).59 We are also convinced that the concept of formative action under Art. 15(3) is not
merely an enabling provision but, in the context of Art. 14, may be a mandatory obligation.
Equality means not only facial equality but de facto equality .60
Liberty
Alarming rise in heinous crimes like kidnapping, sexual assault on women and dacoity have
impinged upon the right to life and the right to live in a safe environment which are within the
contours of Art. 21 of the Constitution of India.61
Under Art. 21 of the Constitution, every citizen has a fundamental right to live in dignity and
peace, without being subjected to violence by other members of society and that by shielding
juveniles, who were fully capable of understanding the consequences of their actions, from the
sentences, as could be awarded under the Indian Penal Code, as far as adults are concerned, the
State was creating a class of citizens who were not only prone to criminal activity, but in whose
cases restoration or rehabilitation was not possible. . The concept of dignity under Art. 21 is also
significant and it must be noticed that it is conjoined by the preceding expression right to life
and any form of violence or assault, sexual or otherwise, on women is a violation of the
fundamental right to live with dignity.
56
Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S. R. Tendolkar AIR 1958 SC 538
Ameerunnissa Begum v. Mahboob Begum AIR 1953 SC 91 , Ramprasad Narain Sahi v. The State of Bihar A.I.R
1953 S.C. 215
58
Article 15 of Constitution of India deals with Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex
or place of birth- (1) The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex,
place of birth or any of them.
59
Article 15 of Constitution of India deals with Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex
or place of birth- Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and
children.
60
Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India AIR 2008 SC 1,
61
Avishek Goenka v. Union of India (2012) 5 SCC 321
57
14
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000, puts a blanket ban on the power
of the criminal courts to try a juvenile offender for offences committed under the Indian Penal
Code, 1860, therefore it should be struck down to the extent it is unconstitutional and void.
Section 2(1)(d) in The Protection of Human Rights Act, 199362 says human rights means
the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by courts in India.
The National Human Rights Commission63, in its Preliminary Report by JS Verma in 2002 has
also held the Government accountable and responsible for the violation of human rights within
its jurisdiction, observing it is the primary and inescapable responsibility of the State to protect
the right to life, liberty, equality and dignity of all of those who constitute it. It is also the
responsibility of the State to ensure that such rights are not violated either through overt acts, or
through abetment or negligence. It is a clear and emerging principle of human rights
jurisprudence that the State is responsible not only for the acts of its own agents, but also for the
acts of non-State players acting within its jurisdiction. The State is, in addition, responsible for
any inaction that may cause or facilitate the violation of human rights.
In the proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 1664 of the Act, Parliament had recognized the
distinction between a juvenile, who had attained the age of sixteen years, but had committed an
offence which was so serious in nature that it would not be in his interest or in the interest of
other juveniles in a special home, to send him to such special home. Considering that none of the
other measures provided under the Act was suitable or sufficient, the Government had
62
An Act to provide for the constitution of a National Human Rights Commission, State Human Rights Commission
in States and Human Rights Courts for better protection of human rights and for matters connected therewith or
Incidental thereto. Came into force on 8th January,1994.
63
NHRC of India is an autonomous public body constituted on 12 October 1993 under the Protection of Human
Rights Ordinance of 28 September 1993. It was given a statutory basis by the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993
( amended by the Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Act, 2006)
64
Order that may not be passed against juvenile.- (1)Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any
other law for the time being in force, no juvenile in conflict with law shall be sentenced to death or life
imprisonment, or committed to prison in default of payment of fine or in default of furnishing security: Provided that
where a juvenile who has attained the age of sixteen years has committed an offence and the Board is satisfied that
the offence committed is of so serious in nature or that his conduct and behavior have been such that it would not be
in hi interest or in the interest of other juvenile in a special home to send him to such special home and that none of
the other measures provided under this Act is suitable or sufficient, the Board may order the juvenile in conflict with
law to be kept in such place of safety and in such manner as it thinks fit and shall report the case for the order of the
State Government
15
empowered the Board to pass an order for the juvenile to be kept in such place of safety and in
such manner as it thought fit.65 Therefore it can be interpreted that juvenile can be imprisoned if
the authority permit so and that no objection could be taken to the Section 16 (1), except in the
proviso to Section 16(2), it has been added that the period of detention order would not exceed,
in any case, the max. limit of punishment, as provided under Section 15, which is 3years.
In view of the provisions of Section 1566 and 1667 of the JJCPA, 2000, children, as defined in
the above Act, were not only taking advantage of the same but were also being used by criminals
for their own ends (like in case of Kasab68 though he was no able to prove his juvenility) ,also
after being awarded a max. sentence of three years, a juvenile convicted of heinous offences, was
almost likely to become a monster in society and pose a great danger to others, in view of his
criminal propensities. Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to
the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law.69
Section 1970 of JJCPA, 2000, which provides for the removal of any disqualification attached
to an offence of any nature, the said provisions do not take into account the fact relating to
repeated offences being perpetrated by a juvenile whose records of previous offences are
removed. Section 19 of the Act was required to be amended to enable the concerned authorities
to retain records of previous offences committed by a juvenile for the purposes of identification
of a juvenile with a propensity to repeatedly commit offences of a grievous or heinous nature, as
it would enable the authorities concerned to assess the criminal propensity of an individual,
which would call for a different approach to be taken at the time of inquiry
65
Paper on Age of Criminal Responsibility of Juvenile in India vis-a-vis Global Scenario: A Critical Review, Indian
Acad Forensic Med. July-September 2013, Vol. 35, No. 3
66
Section 15 of juvenile justice(care and protection )act,2000
67
Section 16 of juvenile justice(care and protection )act,2000
68
Mohd. Ajmal Mohd. Amir Kasab v. State Of Maharashtra, (2012) 9 SCC1
69
Shailesh Jasvantbhai vs. State of Gujarat, (2006) 2 SCC 359, State of U.P. v. Shri Kishan, AIR 2005 SC 1250
70
Section 19- Removal of disqualification attaching to conviction.- (1)Notwithstanding anything contained in any
other law, a juvenile who has committed an offence and has been dealt with under the provisions of this Act shall
not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law. (2) The Board shall make
an order directing that the relevant records of such conviction shall be removed after the expiry of the period of
appeal or a reasonable period as prescribed under the rules, as the case may be.
16
That Section 2871 of JJCPA, 2000 be interpreted in terms of its definition, i.e., alternative
punishment and serious offences having min. punishment of 7 years imprisonment and above be
brought outside its purview and the same should be tried by an ordinary criminal court.
Section 52(2)(a)72 of JJCPA,2000, the interpretation of the act would be contrary to the
fundamental principle of right of access to justice because the right of appeal is limited as no
appeal against an acquittal lies, also the word aggrieved person in the particular Section if
referred to juvenile in conflict with the law would be a restrictive meaning because if
legislative had so intended, it would have then used the words juvenile in conflict with the law
and not any person aggrieved.73
Law as a cornerstone of the edifice of order should meet the challenges confronting the society.
Friedman in his Law in Changing Society stated that: State of criminal law continues to be as
it should bea decisive reflection of social consciousness of society.74 Republic of Hindustan is
not bound by the International Conventions as it is only a signatory to it and also the age limit in
the JJCPA, 2000 is arbitrary in nature, also court must keep in view the rights of the victim of the
crime as well as of the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate
punishment for such heinous acts by juveniles under the age of 16 to 18 as they are mature
enough to know the consequences of their brutal acts.
The time went far behind when children were considered innocent and immature, now justice
can be achieved only through deterrence as the principle of just punishment is the bedrock of
sentencing in respect of a criminal offence75
3. Whether the contention advanced by the respondent that lowering of the age of
Juveniles in the light of survey findings & early precocity of child is legally sustainable?
71
Section 28 - Alternative punishment.- Where an act or omission constitute an offence punishable under this Act
and also under any other Central or State Act, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time
being in force, the offender found guilty of such offences shall be liable to punishment only under such Act as
provides for punishment which is greater in degree.
72
Section 52(2)(a) - No appeal shall lie from any order of acquittal made by the Board in respect of a juvenile
alleged to have committed an offence
73
X Minor Thr. Father Natural Guardian v. State 2012 Cr LJ 4368
74
Supra note 69
75
Gopal Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand, 2013 (3) SCC 444
17
The respondents humbly submits before this Honble court that the contention advanced by the
respondent that lowering of the age of Juveniles in the light of survey findings & early precocity
of child is legally sustainable, as it is truly said no longer could this child be called sweet and
loving rather surly and antagonistic would be better descriptors.76
3.1 In accordance with the statistics:
As per the reports of the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) entitled Crime in India 2011
and Crime in India 2012, the percentage of crimes committed by juveniles as compared to total
crimes has significantly increased from 2001-2012. Crime in India 2012 records that the total
number of rapes committed by juveniles more than doubled from 485 in 2002 to 1149 in 2011.
As the data suggests, between 2011 and 2012 alone, there was a massive increase in instances of
rape by juveniles by nearly 300, which is almost as much as the increase in such cases over the
entire previous decade. This increase alone makes amendment of the JJA imperative.
Also the juveniles in conflict with law (IPC crimes77) in 2013 have increased by 13.6% over
2012 as 27,936 IPC crimes by juveniles were registered during 2012 which increased to 31,725
cases in 2013. 1,330 juveniles were apprehended in the age-group of 7-12 years, 13,346 juveniles
were apprehended in the age-group of 12-16 years during 2013 whereas bulk of juveniles
apprehended (28,830) were under the age-group of 16-18 years. The percentage shares of
Juveniles apprehended under these age groups were 3.1%, 30.7% and 66.3% respectively.78
3.2 Myth that crimes are committed only by economically, personally, and educationally
weak juveniles
Even the argument that broken families and children without parents lead to more juveniles
taking to crime falls flat if the NCRB data is any indication. It shows that in 2011, only 5.7% of
all juveniles arrested were found to be homeless. The rest either stayed with their parents
(81.3%) or relatives.
76
The Adolescent Brain: A Work in Progress http://patwolfe.com/2011/09/the-adolescent-brain-a-work-in-progress/

Offences under Indian Penal Code,1860
78
National Crime Record Bureau Ministry Of Home Affairs, Crime In India 2013 Compendium
77
18
Regard educational background, the report stated that 146 of them were illiterate, 330 primary
pass outs, 471 had above primary education and 477 matriculate and above. Besides, 1302 of
them were living with parents, 97 with guardians and 25 homeless. Juvenile delinquency is not
limited to the lower strata of society.
3.3 Ignorance of mens rea
Laws of Republic Of Hindustan are in parimateria with the laws of the Republic of Indian
therefore under Indian Penal Code79 a child over 12 years does not enjoy any privilege of
immunity from penal liability whereas the same child under Juvenile justice Act is exempted
from penal liability except under certain situations, even though the mens rea is quite visible in
the doing of an act by the child. Even in English law a child between ten to fourteen years do not
enjoy absolute immunity80 although he or she is treated as doli incapax81. Hence at fourteen a
person comes under full criminal responsibility82 Now time is changed, minors commits serious
crime in well planned manner, destroys evidence so cannot be held guilty, Such modus operandi
reveals minor is well trained, intelligent enough to hide the crime. In such scenario need of the
hour is to reduce age limit of minor /juvenile, so to control crime. Time has forced government
to amend the rules on sexual assault, so time is ripe to reduce age of juvenile.
No fixed norm had been laid down by the Act for the age determination of a person and the plea
of the juvenile must be judged strictly on its own merit The Medical evidence as to the age of a
person, though a very useful guiding factor, is not conclusive and has to be considered along
with other cogent evidence83 The court has to determine the age keeping in view a large number
of factors.84
3.4 In accordance with the studies:
79
Indian Penal Code is the main criminal code of India. It is a comprehensive code intended to cover all substantive
aspects of criminal law. The code was drafted in 1860 on the recommendations of first law commission of India
established in 1834 under the Charter Act of 1833.
80
Kennys outline of criminal law,1966. p.79, see also Cross and Jones Introduction to Criminal Law Ed.1976
(Butterworths), p.65
81
Administration of criminal justice : the correctional services, Deep & Deep Publications,1997, New Delhi
Kennys outline of criminal law, 1966, p.80
83
Jitendra ram @ jitu v. state of Jharkhand AIR 2006 SC 1993
84
Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit 1988 Supp SCC 604
82
19
Various studies have marked early precocity in child in todays era of development and
globalization where child have easy access to internet, complicated mind games and all resources
at par with other developed nations.
3.4.1 Neuroscience general not specific:
Adolescent brain science has had, is likely to have, and should have only moderate impact in the
courts. Neuroscience does not materially shape legal decision makers beliefs and values about
youthful offenders but instead will be read through the lens of those beliefs and values.85
Developmental neuroscience supports only probabilistic generalizations about youth as a class; it
is unhelpful in making highly individualized determinations such as formation of intent.86
Determination of the date of birth of a person before a court of law, whether in a civil proceeding
or a criminal proceeding, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Such a
date of birth has to be determined on the basis of the materials on records.87
3.4.2
Early Maturity:
Adolescents mature intellectually before they mature socially or emotionally. Reward sensitivity,
preference for immediate rewards, sensation-seeking, and a greater focus on the rewards of a
risky choice all increase between pre-adolescence and mid-adolescence, peak between ages 15
and 17, and then decline.88
Sir Matthew Hales analysis of the infancy defense in the seventeenth century divided children
into four categories: under seven (deemed doli incapax), seven to eleven (subject to a rebuttable
presumption of incapacity), twelve to fourteen (subject to a weaker presumption of incapacity),
and those over fourteen (held criminally responsible for their actions).89
85
Terry A. Maroney , The False Promise Of Adolescent Brain Science In Juvenile Justice, Vol. 85, Notre Dame
Law Review, p. 89, 2010
86
Ibid, para 2, p.94
87
Ravinder Singh Gorkhi v. State of U.P., (2006) 5 SCC 584
88
Laurence Steinberg, Should the Science of Adolescent Brain Development Inform Public Policy, Issues In Science
And Technology, Spring 2012, p.74
89
Lara A. Bazelon, Note, Exploding the Superpredator Myth, Why Infancy Is the Preadolescents Best Defense in
Juvenile Court, 75 N.Y.U. L. REV. 159, 168-69 (2000).
20
Adolescence has always been troubled, but for reasons that are somewhat mysterious, puberty is
now kicking in at an earlier and earlier age.90 By most accounts, pubertythe process through
which children become adolescents and adolescents become adultsis entered and ended far
earlier, on average, than several centuries ago and measurably earlier than even several decades
ago. Moreover, the most studied mediators of pubertysex hormones and growth hormones
affect not only somatic characteristics and capabilities but, no less profoundly, behavior.91
3.4.3 Use of addictive substance acting as catalyst
Addictive substances also adversely affect brain development and maturation in the areas related
to motivation, judgment, inhibition and self control.92
As a result, addictive substances impair the judgment of teens in the face of potential rewards,
leading not only to their engagement in risky behaviors such as driving while under the influence
of alcohol or other drugs or participating in unsafe sexual practices, but also to continued use of
addictive substances despite negative consequences.
The age differences are more consistently observed when individuals are anticipating rewards
than when they are receiving them, heightened sensitivity to anticipated rewards motivates
adolescents to engage in acts, even risky acts, when the potential for pleasure is high, such as
with unprotected sex, fast driving, or experimentation with drugs, the age at peak human
fecundity (that is, the age at which an individual should begin having sex if he or she wants to
have the most children possible) is about the same as the age at the peak of risk-takingbetween
16 and 17 years of age 93
3.4.4 Easy access to technology and firearms
90 What's Wrong With the Teenage Mind?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203806504577181351486558984 last accessed on 2/02/2015 at 6
pm.
91
Robert Hunt, The Missing Politics and Unsettled Science of the Trend Toward Earlier Puberty, journal of the
Association for Politics and the Life Sciences, p. 43-66, Mar 2001
92
Adolescent Substance Use: Americas #1 Public Health Problem," The National Center on Addiction and
Substance Abuse at Columbia University (New York, NY: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at
Columbia University, June 2011), p. 13
93
Laurence Steinberg, Should the Science of Adolescent Brain Development Inform Public Policy, Issues In Science
And Technology, Spring 2012, p.72
21
A child of age 16 with his exposure to internet and mass media is as much aware and informed
as an adult and there is not much possibility of reforming such accused because of their mental
development, some of the negative effects of technology which leads to delinquent behavior of a
child are:
Isolation: Youths have isolated themselves by walking around in their own little world,
listening to their iPods or staring at the screen of the latest mobile device even when they
are around other person which further leads to depression. The use of technology has
caused an increase in bullying94 through which youngsters indirectly and intentionally
tries to harm another, and has escalated the degree of severity.
Lack of Sexual Boundaries: Exposure to sexual content is more likely to happen at a

much younger age. Sexually reactive children and adolescents (SRCAs), sometimes
referred to as juvenile sexual offenders, may be more vulnerable and likely to experience
damaging effects from pornography use because they are a high-risk group for a variety
of aggressive behaviors95
Lack of Empathy: The constant stream of violent scenes on video games, TV, movies
etc. causes youth become desensitized to destruction of any kind. The typical American
child will view more than 200,000 acts of violence, including more than 16,000 murders
before age 18.96 Adolescent may come to see violence as a fact of life and, over time, lose
their ability to empathize with both the victim and the victimizer.
3.4.5 Crime of aggression97:

Research on violent television and films, video games, and music reveals unequivocal
evidence that media violence increases the likelihood of aggressive and violent behavior in
94
Cyber bullying is the use of information technology to repeatedly harm or harass other people in a deliberate
manner.
95
Pornography use as a risk marker for an aggressive pattern of behavior among sexually reactive children and
adolescents (2009), William F. Connell School of Nursing, Boston College, Massachusetts.
96
The Impact of Media Violence on Children and Adolescents: Opportunities for Clinical Interventions by Eugene
V Beresin, M.D. Director of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Residency Training Massachusetts General Hospital
and McLean Hospital.
97
L. R. Huesmann and others, Longitudinal Relations between Children's Exposure to TV Violence and Their
Aggressive and Violent Behavior in Young Adulthood,19771992, Developmental Psychology 39, no. 2 (2003):
20121.
22
both immediate and long-term contexts.98Also commissions of heinous crimes by juveniles

are the result of the aggression and violence developed in them due to easy access of the
technology and other dangerous tools. More than 75% of kids in homes with guns say they
know where the gun is kept.99 Annually, there are only about 200 legally justified selfdefense homicides by private citizens100 compared with over 30,000 gun deaths.101.
4. Whether the impugned amendment dehumanizes the criminal administration of justice

as contended by the petitioner?
The primary purpose of law in any country is the smooth and suave functioning of country
without any havoc/hindrances and disturbances. But, the very basic and prime purpose of law
seems to be defeated by the JJ(Care & Protection)Act, 2000 act in our country. A mere
punishment of imprisonment for just 3 years102 and that too in special home atmosphere for the
heinous and grievous acts, such as of rape, murder and kidnapping, no where seems to meet the
ends of the justice or the purpose for which this law was enacted. The concern of the
administration of justice is the fair, just and impartial upholding of rights, and punishment of
wrongs, according to the rule of law103. The administration of justice is not confined to the
Courts; it encompasses officers of the law and others such as legislature whose duties are
essential to ensure the effective functioning of the courts. So, accordingly the said amendment
has been enacted in order to deal with the rapid increase in the heinous crimes committed by the
juveniles in order to deter and set a benchmark for the other juveniles as well and to promote a
healthy and free living in the society.
4.1 Shielding the rights of victims
98
C. A. Anderson and others, The Influence of Media Violence on Youth, Psychological Science in the Public
Interest 4, no. 3 (2003): 81110.www.psychologicalscience.org/journals/index.cfm?journal=pspi&content=pspi/4_3.
99
Reddy, C Sheela, Dimensions of juvenile crime: An Indian perspective, Vol. 7,South Asia Politics, Aug 2008
100
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Expanded Homicide Data Table 14, 2007. Available at
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_14.html.
101
National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System,
2007. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/ injury/wisqars/fatal.html.
102
Sec. 15(3) of JJ(CPA) act, 2000
103
A. V. Dicey propounded the concept of rule of law in the 19th century.
23
The no. of serious and violent crimes by the juveniles are on high rise especially on women.
66.3% of the total juveniles apprehended in 2013 were all lying in the age category of 16-18
years and also the no. of juveniles in the same age category has increased to 59.7% from 2003 to
2013.104 Crimes lead to various repercussions as they may leave victims physically injured,
emotionally traumatized, with long lasting psychological trauma, all of which can be
compounded by severe financial issues. Therefore the amendment has been laid down to control
the increasing violent crimes. The said amendment doesnt dehumanizes the criminal
administration of justice as it is applicable to those juveniles only who are indulged in heinous
crimes such as rape, murder etc. and also the amendment prescribes that the life imprisonment
and death penalty should not be granted to the juveniles there under.
In United Kingdom, Youth justice and Criminal Evidence Act, 1999, says children between
ages 10 and 18 are capable of committing a crime and will be tried in a separate court for youth.
In exceptionally severe cases, a youth can be tried as an adult in regular courts.105
Therefore, the impugned amendment is in consonance with the human rights of the juveniles as
well as the victims of the crimes in order to attain a balance between the rights of the victims as
well as of offenders also.
4.2 Puppet in the hands of criminal rackets
Complying with the provisions of the JJ(Care & Protection) Act, 2000 blindly in black and
white, without providing it any scope for flexibility to meet the ends of justice or the intention
behind the enactment of that act is ultimately heading towards in altogether a very different,
which anyone of us would have never thought of and it is ultimately proving a BOON for the
actual doers or master minds of the crime due to the strict abidance of this law. They are opting
for the poor and needy minors in allurance for small amounts of money to execute their acts,
because they are very well aware of the fact that JJ Act would be acting as a safeguard for them
and ultimately what at max. they can be punished with is a mere imprisonment for a period of 3
104
105
NCRB TABLE-10.7, Juveniles Apprehended Under IPC And SLL Crimes By Age Groups (2003-2013)
About the youth justice board, UK GOVT, (Jan 25 ,2015,09:55 pm), http://www.justice.gov.uk/about/yjb
24
years, no matter how heinous the crime is. Instead of having a sense of fear to the JJ(Care &
Protection) Act as a piece of law, it is being used as a gateway pass for their crimes by them.
Two important aspects related to juvenile crimes are paid no heed by the reformists while
pleading for the maintenance of status quo in juvenile law. Firstly, society, especially women,
also need protection from a juvenile who has got sufficient mental maturity and understanding of
the nature and consequences of his action, but still commits the same intentionally and in cold
blood because of his criminal bent of mind. Such hardened juvenile mostly belong to the age
group of sixteen to eighteen years. Secondly, one of the basic object of granting befitting
punishment is to create a deterrent effect, both upon wrong-doer as well as on others members of
Society. Mere knowledge of the fact that one can escape any punishment may make a juvenile
more reckless and dangerous. It may also encourage adult accomplices in such crimes to push the
onus for the gravest aspects of such crimes on the juvenile, thereby escaping full punishment
themselves. Hence, The stated amendment will surely yield results as the terrorists or other crime
syndicates will not use the children for achieving their ill-motivated targets keeping the life of
the other people at par with risk.
The impugned amendment was need of the hour in order to promote a healthy and free living in
the society and eradicate the juvenile crimes in the society and transform the youth of the nation
as a stepping stone to the growth and development of the nation
25
SUBMISSION TO THE HONBLE COURT

Wherefore in the light of arguments advanced and authorities cited, the Respondent humbly
submits that the Honble Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:
TO HOLD
1. That the petition is not maintainable.

2. That the said amendment in JJCPA,2000 is Constitutional and does not violate
the core principles of international covenants and other established ideals .

MISCELLANEOUS
1. Any other order as it deems fit in the interest of justice, equity and good
conscience .
For This Act of Kindness, the Respondent Shall Duty Bound Forever Pray.
Sd/(Counsel for the respondent)
XVI

Respondent (Uoi)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Respondent (Uoi)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TEAM C

SMT. VELAGAPUDI DURGAMBA SIDDHARTHA LAW COLLEGE

IN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF

THE WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF CONSTITUTION OF

WRIT PETITION NO: ____/ 2015

CHILD RIGHTS ADVOCACY FOUNDATION

THE REPUBLIC OF HINDUSTAN

MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT

~MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT~

All India Report

National Crime Rate Bureau

National Human Rights Commission

~MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT~

~MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT~

Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari V. State Of

(2011) 11 SCC 214

AIR 1999 SC 625

~MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT~

Bajoria v. The State Of West Bengal

AIR 1953 SC 404

AIR 2004 SC 1923

[1991] 2 AIR 1153 (SC)

K.R. Srinivas v. R.M. Premchand,

(1994) (6) SCC 620

Ravinder Singh Gorkhi v. State Of U.P

State Of Himachal Pradesh v. Students Parent AIR 1985 SC 910

State Of Madhya Pradesh v. Bablu

AIR 2015 SC 102

State Of Maharashtra v. Prabhu,

1994 (2) SCC 481

~MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT~

State Of U.P. v. Shri Kishan

AIR 2005 SC 1250

(2006) 6 SCC 180

AIR 1951 SC 318

487 U.S. 815 (1988)

AIR 1997 SC 3011

~MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT~

~MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT~

~MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT~

CASE CONCERNING THE AGE OF JUVENILE DELIQUENTS

CHILD RIGHTS ADVOCACY FOUNDATION

THE REPUBLIC OF HINDUSTAN

~MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT~

Background facts: The Republic of Hindustan is a country which is almost similar in

~MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT~

~MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT~

~MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT~

JUVENILE JUSTICE AND ESTABLISHED JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS IS

~MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT~

3) WHETHER THE CONTENTION ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT THAT

~MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT~

~MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT~

1.1 Detracts from the Constitutional principle of separation of powers

~MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT~

1.2 No PILL for ILL

~MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT~

Janta Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, AIR 1993 SC 892

~MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT~

to file misconceived and frivolous petitions.21

~MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT~

~MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT~

and for the min. necessary period,

~MEMORIAL for the RESPONDENT~