Supreme Court refuses to reduce juvenile age from 18 to 16 years

A bench lead by Chief Justice Altamas Kabir dismissed a batch of PILs which were filed in the apex court demanding that the Act should be amended and a minor involved in atrocious crimes should not be protected under the law. These pleas in the apex court were opposed by various child activists, including former Chairman of Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights (DCPCR) Amod Kanth.

  • As per Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, person is treated as a minor till he attains the age of 18 years.
  • The petition had opposed that sections 2(k), 10 and 17 of the Act which deal with the issue were illogical in context of the Constitution.
  • The petitions had also submitted that the Act needs amendment as it does not talk about the physical or mental maturity of a juvenile.
  • In one of the other petition it was mentioned that appointment of a criminal psychologist to resolve through clinical and medical examination if the juvenile accused in a case would be a threat to the society.

Month: Categories: Constitution & Law

Tags:

After 7 years of ban dance bars in Maharashtra all set to run

Supreme Court stayed with the Bombay High Court’s verdict to repress the State Government’s order to close the dance bars, 7 years after they were banned dance bars can again run in Maharashtra.  In 2005 the Maharashtra Government brought in an amendment in the Bombay Police Act which was challenged in the High Court by an association representing restaurants and bars.

The High Court in 2006 had repressed the Government’s decision. The State Government had moved to the apex court against the High Court’s order the same year. The Supreme Court while accepting the Government’s plea had stayed with the High Court’s verdict.

As per the Government there were only 345 licensed dance bars and about 2,500 unlicensed bars were doing business in the State. As many as 72% of the bar girls being married and 68% being the sole bread earners of their family, the State Government’s order had rendered them jobless and thus High Court struck down it as illogical and unconstitutional.

Month: Categories: Constitution & Law

Tags: