SUPREME COURT LEGAL AID COMMITTEE versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1989] 2 S.C.R. 60 · Decided: 17-03-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA, M.N. VENKATACHALIAH · Disposal: Directions issued
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

)_ 
A 
SUPREME COURT LEGAL AID COMMITTEE 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
MARCH 17, 1989 
B 
[RANGANATH MISRA AND M.N VENKATACHALIAH, H.) 
I 
Juvenile Justice Act, 1986: Sections 2(e), 5, 9, JO, 11and62. 
~ 
Juveniles detained in regular jails-Exact number-Determina-
• 
tion of-Setting up of juvenile courts-Establishment of-Juveniles 
c 
homes-Special homes-Observation homes-Framing of statutory 
rules-Directions of Supreme Court. 
y 
Children-Need protective umbrella of society for better growth 
and development-Responsibility of society-Paramount obligation of 
D 
those who are in charge of the governance of the country. 
Pursuant to the directions made by the Supreme Court, with a 
view to providing relief to delinquent children detained in jails, in 1986 
the District Judges of the entire country supplied the particulars of . -!-
under trial and convicted children found in regular jails within their 
E 
jurisdiction. With the passage of time and the coming into force of the 
Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 it became necessary to get fresh detailed 
reports for updating the information. 
;..
The Supreme Court issued directions and, 
HELD: 1. Children require the protective umbrella of society for > 
F 
better growth and development as they are not in a position to claim ~ 
' 
their entitlement-to attention, growing up, food, education and the 
like. It is the responsibility of the society and is one of the paramount 
obligations of those who are in charge of governance of the country 
today to attend to the children to make them appropriate citizens of 
G 
tomorrow. [64A-BI 
-'I" 
2. Every District Judge is directed to report to this Court the 
figures as to the exact number of delinquent juveniles still detained in 
regular jails and whether juvenile courts, juvenile homes, special homes 
and observations homes as provied in the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 
H 
have been established. [62H; 63AI 
60 
) 
'"i 
). 
.. 
f 
-\·. 
-"-
~ 
·r.. 
LEGAL AID COMMITfEE v. U.0.1. 
61 
2.1 A Senior Advocate of this Court is appointed as Commis-
sioner to visit the jails in the three Districts of the State of Bihar, viz. 
A 
Deogarh, Patna and Bhagalpur and collect the necessary particulars of 
juvenile delinquents housed in t•10se jails and report to this Court. He 
shall be provided all facilities by the State Government and shall also be 
entitled to reimbursement of his expenses. [64H; 65A-B] 
B 
3. Section 62 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 empowers the State 
Government to make rules to carry out the purposes of the Act. The 
scheme of the Act is such that it cannot be properly enforced unless 
appropriate rules are framed and brought into force. The District 
Judges while making their reports shall also indicate whether rules have 
been framed and whether such rules are already in force. Counsel for c 
the respective States are directed to inform this Court by written 
Memorandum about the framing of rules and bringing them into force 
in the-respective States. If such rules have not been framed in any 
State, such State or States are directed to frame the same and bring 
them into force without any further delay. [63C-E] 
D 
4. For facilitating tbe monitoring of the implementation of the 
Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, a gronp of nominated advocates is entrusted 
with the work of making a draft Scheme and placing it before the Court 
for its consideration. [64D-E] 
5. The Registry of this Conrt should have appropriate funds to 
E 
meet the expenses from time to time. The Union of India is directed 
to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000 while each of the States of Bihar and 
West Bengal and Uttar Pradesh is directed to deposit a sum of 
Rs.15,000. [65B-C] 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 
F 
1451of1985. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) 
R.K. Jain and Yo,geshwar Prasad, R.K. Khanna, R.K. Bhatt and 
Dalveer Bhandari for the Petitioner. 
G 
V.C. Mahajan, Tapas Ray, A.S. Nambiar, S.B. Bhasme, Kapil 
Sibal, R.B. Misra, A. Subhashini, Y.P. Rao, Ms. S. Janani, Ms. 
Urmila Kapur, D.K. Sinha, J.R. Dass, P.K. Manohar, Ms. S. Vasude-
van, M. Veerappa, Uma Nath, R.K. Mehta, V. Krishnamurthy, A.S. 
Bhasme, K.R. Nambiar, B.D Sharma, Kailash Vasudev, D.N. 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
62 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
11989] 2 S.C.R. 
Mukherjee, D. Goburdhan, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, T. V.S.N. Chari, 
Mahabir Singh, Probir Chowdhry, M.N. Shroff, A. Subba Rao, R.S. 
Suri, G. Probhakar, K. Ram Kumar, S.K. Bhattacharya, L.R. Singh, 
A.K.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.