Of all issues on which opinions of single judges of the Madras High Court remain divided, the most significant turns out to be the issue of directing Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs) to consider bail applications of ‘juveniles in conflict with law’ right on the day of their surrender.
High Court Judges were freely issuing such directions until Justice S. Vimala in October last held that juveniles need not seek such orders from the High Court since they enjoyed a statutory right to bail unless the JJBs were of the view that it would not be in the interest of the juvenile to be enlarged on bail.
Expressing surprise over numerous petitions seeking such directions, the judge said the practice should be discouraged because Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 clearly stated that the JJBs should release juveniles on bail irrespective of the nature of offence.
The Section also stated that the JJBs could refuse bail only if there were “reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring the juvenile into association with any unknown criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice.”
Subsequently, Justice S. Vaidyanathan also dismissed a series of petitions seeking such directions to the JJBs. He held that High Court could not encroach upon the jurisdiction of the JJBs to assess the threat perception of a juvenile in conflict with law and decide whether he/she should be given bail or not.
On February 16, Justice P.N. Prakash too took a similar stand and dismissed a batch of direction petitions. Conceding that he himself had issued such a direction once, the judge said: “In retrospect, I am of the opinion that the view taken by me requires reconsideration. After all, we become wiser day by day.”
Despite all this, such direction petitions continue to be filed in the High Court and another set of judges has been freely entertaining those petitions and disposing them of with a direction to the JJBs to accept the surrender of juveniles and consider granting bail to them on the day of surrender itself.
While coming across such petitions recently, Ms. Justice Vimala found that they were being filed incessantly because most of the JJBs were insisting on reports from Probation Officers before granting bail to juveniles and consequently lodging the juveniles in Observation Homes until the reports were received.
The judge disposed of those petitions by reiterating her decision that “so far as juveniles are concerned, bail is a rule and non grant of bail is an exception” and that the Juvenile Justice Act did not contemplate calling for reports from Probation Officers before taking a decision on a juvenile’s plea for bail.
In identical orders passed in these petitions, the judge has directed the JJBs in Tiruchi, Kanyakumari and a few other districts under the jurisdiction of the High Court Bench here “to consider and pass orders on the bail application of the petitioner on merits on the same day of his appearance.”
