Supreme Court Mandates Naming of Presiding Officers and Members in Juvenile Justice Act Orders for Judicial Transparency and Accountability
In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court has highlighted a critical procedural issue regarding the non-mentioning of presiding officers’ and members’ names in orders passed under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. Justices CT Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal expressed concern over the ambiguity caused by failing to specify the officials responsible for judicial decisions. They stressed the importance of clarity in identifying these individuals to ensure transparency and accountability within the judicial process.
The bench underscored the necessity for all courts, tribunals, boards, and quasi-judicial authorities to explicitly include the names of presiding officers or members in their orders. This directive aims to prevent confusion and facilitate accurate attribution of decisions to specific authorities. Additionally, the court suggested that unique identification numbers, where applicable, should also be referenced alongside the officers’ names for further clarity.
Moreover, the Supreme Court addressed another significant procedural shortfall related to the recording of counsels’ names during adjournment requests. It pointed out that the omission of counsel names in order sheets, especially when granting adjournments, complicates the identification of parties responsible for delaying proceedings. The court emphasized the importance of documenting the presence of parties and their counsels accurately to facilitate fair adjudication and imposition of costs when necessary.
In a related aspect of the judgment, the Supreme Court clarified that while the Juvenile Justice Act stipulates a three-month time limit for the preliminary assessment of juveniles under Section 14(3), this period is not mandatory. However, the court prescribed a strict 30-day limit for appealing against orders issued by the Juvenile Justice Board concerning preliminary assessments.
This ruling, stemming from the case titled “Child in Conflict with Law through His Mother v. The State of Karnataka and Another,” reinforces procedural standards aimed at enhancing transparency and accountability in judicial proceedings under the Juvenile Justice Act.
Case Title: CHILD IN CONFLICT WITH LAW THROUGH HIS MOTHER VERSUS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER
