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

Citation: [1989] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 34 · Decided: 05-09-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA, G.L. OZA · Disposal: Directions issued
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
0 
H 
SUPREME COURT LEGAL AID COMMITTEE 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 5, 1989 
[RANGANATH MISRA AND G.L. OZA, JJ.] 
Juvenile Justice Act, 1986: Sections 2(e)(h), 53 and 62-
Setting up of Advisory Boards for implementation of Act-Directions-
Issued. 
In a public interest application filed under Article 32 of the Con-
stitution for enforcement of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 
of the Constitution being denied to the hundreds of juvenile delin-
quents, all over the country, the Supreme Court had issued directions 
from time to time. 
Issuing further directions in the matter, this Court, 
HELD: For the present the Advisory Board in terms of the provi-
sion of the scheme for facilitating the monitoring of the implementation 
of the Act should be set up at the State level and steps at the District 
level may be deferred. [35E] 
· 
Each of the States, including the State of Jammu & Kashmir to 
which the scheme would apply, by its consent, is directed to set up its 
Advisory Board in terms of the scheme. The total number of the Advis-
ory Boards should not be below 15 and not above 20. The State Govern-
ment should indicate as to who would be the Chairman and Secretary 
respectively of the Board. Such Committee should be set up within six 
weeks and report of compliance filed with the Registry of this Court 
within eight weeks. The first meeting of the Board should be within four 
weeks of its constitution and every such Board should send its first 
proceeding to the Registry. [35F, H, 36A-B) 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Cr!.) No. 1451 of 
1985. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India). 
· R.K. Jain and R.K. Bhatt for the Petitioner. 
34 
.. 
SUPREME COURT LEGAL AID COMMITTEE v. U.0.1. 
35 
Kapil Sibal, Anil D. Singh, V.C. Mahajan, A. S. Nambiar, 
Salman Khurshid, Gopal Singh, Ms. K. Jaiswal, Ms. S. Janani, Ms. A. 
Subhashini, Mrs. Indira Sawhney, Mrs. Urmila-Kapoor, A.S. Bhasme, 
A.M. 
Khanwilkar, 
K.R. 
Nambiar, J.R. Das, D.K. 
Sinha, 
D. Bhandari, Y.P. Rao, S.K. Agnihotri, P.K. Manohar, M. Veerap-
pa, R.K. Mehta, K.R.R. Nambiar, B.D. Sharma, K. Vasdev, D.N. 
Mukharjee, M.P. Jha, T.V.S.N. Chari, Mahabir Singh, M.N. Shroff, 
A. Subba Rao, R.S. Sodhi, K. Ramkumar, S.K. Bhattacharya, L.R. 
Singh, A.K. Sanghi, C.V.S. Rao, R. Venkataramani, Probir Choud-
hary, T.V.S. Krishnamurthy, S. Vasudevan, D.R.K. Reddy, K.J. 
Rao and U .N. Singh for the Respondents. 
,. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered: 
ORDER 
It is stated by counsel appearing for the States including that of 
Nagaland that affidavits as directed have been filed. Mr. Jain appear-
A 
B 
c 
ing in support of the writ pet\tion has asked for a direction to the State 
D · 
to set up Advisory Boards both at the State and the District levels, as 
contemplated in the scheme so that implementation of the various 
provisions of the Act can be facilitated. 
We are of the view that for the present the Board in terms of the 
provision of the scheme should be set up at the State level and steps at 
E 
the District level may be deferred for the present. 
Each of the States including the State of Jammu & Kashmir to 
which the scheme would apply though not under the Act in view of its 
consent, is directed to set up its Advisory Board in terms of the 
-' 
scheme. Implementation of the Act would be convenient if in the 
F 
Board to be set up the Ministers of Law and Social or Children's 
Welfare, as the case may be, the Secretary to Government in the 
relevant Department, the Head of the Police Establishment (Director 
General or the Inspector General, as the case may be), the Head of the 
Health Directorate, two members of the Bar with appropriate 
aptitude, an acknowledge lady social worker, a Member of Parliame.nt 
G 
and a M.ember of the State Legislature, one or two social worke£> of 
.acknowledged -.reput~ preferably connected with children's rehabilita-
tion activity ate included. It would be open to the State Government to 
make small variations depending upon the requirements of any 
~-
particular State. The total number of the Advisory Boards should not 
be below 15 and not above 20: The State Government should indicate H 
36 
SUPREME .COURT REPORTS 
[1989] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 
A 
as to wno would be the Chairman and Secretary respectively of the 
Board. Such Committee should be set up within six weeks from today 
·and report of compliance shall be filed with the Registry of this Court 
within eight weeks. The fi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.