DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY AND ORS. versus RAJU, THROUGH MEMBER, JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD AND ANR.

Citation: [2013] 8 S.C.R. 520 · Decided: 22-08-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2013] 8 S.C.R. 520 -
DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY AND ORS. 
V. 
RAJU, THROUGH MEMBER, JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD 
. 
AND ANR. 
(Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1953 of 2013) 
AUGUST 22, 2013 
[P. SATHASIVAM," CJI, RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI 
AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.] 
C 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 136 - Special Leave 
Petition - Criminal proceedings - third party intervention -
Maintainability - Held: Law does not recognize right of a third 
party/stranger to participate or came to aid of State in a 
criminal proceeding - In the instant case, the petitioner (a third 
D party), is not seeking impleadment in the inquiry against the 
juvenile accused, pending before the Juvenile Justice Board 
or in the trial - He is seeking an authoritative pronouncement 
of the true purport and effect of different provisions of Juvenile 
Justice Act so as to take a juvenile out of the purview of the 
E Act - Such adjudication has implications beyond the case of 
the juvenile accused - Therefore, the petition does not suffer 
from the vice of absence of locus of the petitioners and hence 
the petition is maintainable - Notice issued - Juvenile Justice 
(Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. 
F 
The case of the first respondent (a juvenile), who was 
an accused in a gang rape case, was before Juvenile 
Justice Board. The petitioner approached the Board, 
seeking his impleadment in the proceedings in order to 
seek interpretation of the provisions of the Juvenile 
G Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. When 
the Board expressed its inability to decide the question 
of law raised by the petitioners, they filed a public interest 
litigation before High Court seeking interpretation of the 
provisions of the Act. High Court dismissed the petition. 
H 
520 
' 
I. 
DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY v. RAJU, THROUGH 
521 
MEMBER, JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD 
In appeal, union of India contended that the petition 
A 
was not maintainable because third party/stranger does 
not have any right to participate in criminal prosecution, 
which is primarily function of the State. 
Issuing notice in the Special Leave Petition, the 
B 
Court 
HELD: 1.The administration of criminal justice in 
India can be divided into two broad stages at which the 
machinery operates. The first is the investigation of an 
alleged offence leading to prosecution and the second 
C 
is the actual prosecution of the offender in a court of law. 
The jurisprudence that has evolved over the decades has 
assigned the primary role and responsibility at both 
stages to the State, though in certain exceptional 
situations there is a recognition of a limited right in a 
D 
victim or his family members to take part in the process, 
particularly, at the stage of the trial. The law, however, 
frowns upon and prohibits any abdication by the State 
of its role in the matter at each of the stages and, in fact, 
does not recognize the right of a third party/stranger to 
E 
participate or even to come to the aid of the State at any 
of the stages. Private funding of the investigative process 
has been disapproved. [Para 7] [527-D-G] 
2. The instant special leave petition does not suffer 
from the vice of absence of locus on the part of the 
petitioners so as to render the same not maintainable in 
law. The petitioners do not seek impleadment in the 
inquiry against the first respondent presently pending 
before the Juvenile Justice Board or in the trial to which 
F 
he may be relegated in the event the questions of law are 
G 
answered in favour of the petitioners and that too within 
the requisite time span. Such a prayer, i.e. for impleadment 
was raised and decided against the petitioners by the 
Board. The said prayer had not been pursued before the 
High Court. Neither the same has been raised before this 
H 
522 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 8 S.C.R. 
A Court. All that the petitioners seek is an authoritative 
pronouncement of the true purport and effect of the 
different provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Case and 
Protection of Children) Act, 2000, so as to take a juvenile 
out of the purview of the said Act, in case he had 
B committed an offence, which, according to the petitioners, 
on a true interpretation of Section 2(p) of the Act, is 
required to be identified and distinguished to justify a 
separate course of action, namely, trial in a regular court 
of law as a specific offence under the Penal Code and in 
c accordance with the provisions of Cr.P.C. The 
adjudication that

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.