Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Supreme Court highlighted that the fact of accused being a child in conflict with law was known to the Investigating Officer, prosecution as well as the Trial Court from the very inception of proceedings.
“Generally, prospective adoptive parents have to wait for 3-4 years for getting ‘a healthy and young child’ due to the huge mismatch in the number of registered PAPs and children available for adoption.”
A chargesheet was filed against the Juvenile Delinquent for offences under Sections 363, 366-A, 368, 376 of the IPC and Section 3, 4, 16 and 17 of the JJ Act.
The Court said that the comparison done by the Competent Court between the biological mother being a housewife and the prospective adoptive mother (single parent) being a working lady reflects a mindset of the medieval conservative concepts of a family.
Supreme Court said that the degree or dimension of the offence should not be the direct approach of the Court in its inquiry into juvenility of an accused or convict.
In the case at hand, the juvenile had already undergone incarceration of more than 5 years which was against Section 18 of the J.J. Act, 2015. The Supreme Court noted that the intention of the legislature was to give benefit to a person who is declared to be a child on the date of the offence only with respect to its sentence part.
The Court held that the employer is prohibited by law from referring to or taking in consideration the judgment of conviction so as to deprive a successful candidate, who was a child in conflict with law at some point of time from being employed in Government service.
Upon the invitation of the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR), Symbiosis Law School, Pune, a constituent of Symbiosis International
Karnataka High Court: Hemant Chandangoudar, J., allowed the petition and quashed the impugned proceedings initiated against alleged offence under Section 80 of
Patna High Court: While addressing the plight of a minor girl who was first trafficked by her own maternal uncle and was
Karnataka High Court: Krishna S. Dixit J. disposed off the petition and remarked “there is & shall be no cause of action
Bombay High Court: Manish Pitale, J., while stressing upon the concept of adoption expressed that: The practice of adoption has been prevalent
Orissa High Court: Savitri Ratho J. released the appellant on interim bail for a period of four months to the satisfaction of
Supreme Court: In a bid to clear the air over the applicability of and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Delhi High Court: A Division Bench of D.N. Patel, CJ and Prateek Jalan, J., directed that the statements under Section 164 of
Kerala High Court: The Division Bench of K.Harilal and Annie John. JJ. allowed a revision petition filed by mother of a 15-year