Bombay HC: Wife Humiliating Husband in Front of His Friends is Amounts to Cruelty  ||  Delhi HC Interprets Doctrine of “Compelled Self-Publication”,  ||  Del. HC Issues Summons to Campus Sutra in Trademark Infringement Suit Filed by Footwear Brand Campus  ||  Bombay HC Dismisses PIL Seeking Restraining Order against PRADA  ||  Delhi HC: Cannot Bypass Bar on Revision of Interlocutory Order by Invoking Inherent Jurisdiction  ||  Delhi HC: Prosecutrix’s Refusal to Undergo Medical Examination Weakens the Case  ||  Bom. HC: No Provision under JJ Act that Allows Adoption of a Child of Foreign Citizenship  ||  SC Passes Order to Prevent Russian Mother’s Attempt to Flee with Child  ||  SC: Deprivation of Natural Heir from Will May Not Raise Suspicion  ||  SC: Denying Female Heir Right in Property Only Exacerbates Gender Division    

R.K. Tarun v. Union of India and Ors. - (High Court of Delhi) (19 Nov 2015)

Delhi Juvenile Justice Rules not unconstitutional

MANU/DE/3552/2015

Miscellaneous

The Delhi High Court rejected a petition calling the procedure for determining juvenility of an accused unconstitutional and in conflict with the law. Despite there being a difference between the Delhi Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2009 and the Model Rules, the Court directed authorities to follow the State rules. It determined that though State rules gave a different priority to documents produced in evidence of the age of an accused, and different courts followed different procedures, such did not render them unjustified. Further, unless the Rules were shown to be contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India, arbitrary or unreasonable, a court could not “sit in judgment over [Parliament’s] wisdom”.

Relevant : Ashwini Kumar Saxena v. State of Madhya Pradesh, MANU/SC/0753/2012 Section 49 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 Act

Tags : JUVENILE   PRIORITY   PROOF   RULES   VARIATION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved