http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SUPREME COURT LEGAL AID COMMITTEE

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT05/09/1989

BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH VENKATACHALLIAH, M.N. (J)

CITATION:  1989 AIR 1278            1989 SCR  (2)  60  1989 SCC  (2) 325        JT 1989 (1)   549  1989 SCALE  (1)651

ACT:     Juvenile  Justice Act,  1986: Sections 2(e)(h),  53  and 62--Setting  up  of Advisory Boards  for  implementation  of Act----Directions---Issued.

HEADNOTE:     In a public interest application filed under Article  32 of  the Constitution for enforcement of  fundamental  rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution being denied to the hundreds of juvenile delinquents, all over the  country, the Supreme Court had issued directions from time to time. Issuing further directions in the matter, this Court,     HELD: For the present the Advisory Board in terms of the provision  of the scheme for facilitating the monitoring  of the implementation of the Act should be set up at the  State level and steps at the District level may be deferred. [35E]     Each  of  the  States, including the State  of  Jammu  & Kashmir to which the scheme would apply, by its consent,  is directed  to  set  up its Advisory Board  in  terms  of  the scheme.  The total number of the Advisory Boards should  not be  below 15 and not above 20. The State  Government  should indicate  as  to  who would be the  Chairman  and  Secretary respectively  of the Board. Such Committee should be set  up within  six  weeks and report of compliance filed  with  the Registry of this Court within eight weeks. The first meeting of the Board should be within four weeks of its constitution and every such Board should send its first proceeding to the Registry, [35F, H, 36A-B]

JUDGMENT: ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 145 1 of 1985. (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India). R.K. Jain and R.K. Bhatt for the Petitioner. 35     Kapil Sibal, Anil D. Singh, V.C. Mahajan, A.S.  Nambiar, Salman Khurshid, Gopal Singh, Ms. K. Jaiswal, Ms. S. Janani, Ms. A. Subhashini, Mrs. Indira Sawhney, Mrs.  Urmila.Kapoor, A.S.  Bhasme, A.M.  Khanwilkar,  K.R.  Nambiar,  J.R.   Das,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

D.K.   Sinha,  D. Bhandari, Y.P. Rao, S.K.  Agnihotri,  P.K. Manohar,  M.  Veerappa,  R.K. Mehta,  K.R.R.  Nambiar,  B.D. Sharma, K. Vasdev, D.N. Mukharjee, M.P. Jha, T.V.S.N. Chari, Mahabir  Singh,  M.N. Shroff, A. Subba Rao, R.S.  Sodhi,  K. Ramkumar, S.K. Bhattacharya, L.R. Singh, A.K. Sanghi, C.V.S. Rao,  R.  Venkataramani, Probir Choudhary,  T.V.S.  Krishna- murthy, S. Vasudevan, D.R.K. Reddy, K.J. Rao and U.N.  Singh for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered: ORDER     It is stated by counsel appearing for the States includ- ing  that of Nagaland that affidavits as directed have  been filed.  Mr. Jain appearing in support of the  writ  petition has  asked for a direction to the State to set  up  Advisory Boards both at the State and the District levels, as contem- plated  in the scheme so that implementation of the  various provisions of the Act can be facilitated.     We  are  of the view that for the present the  Board  in terms of the provision of the scheme should be set up at the State level and steps at the District level may be  deferred for the present.     Each of the States including the State of Jammu &  Kash- mir to which the scheme would apply though not under the Act in  view of its consent, is directed to set up its  Advisory Board  in  terms of the scheme. Implementation  of  the  Act would be convenient if in the Board to be set up the  Minis- ters  of Law and Social or Children’s Welfare, as  the  case may be, the Secretary to Government in the relevant  Depart- ment, the Head of the Police Establishment (Director General or  the Inspector General, as the case may be), the Head  of the  Health Directorate, two members of the Bar with  appro- priate aptitude, an acknowledge lady social worker, a Member of Parliament and a Member of the State Legislature, one  or two  social workers of .acknowledged repute preferably  con- nected with children’s rehabilitation activity are included. It  would  be  open to the State Government  to  make  small variations depending upon the requirements of any particular State. The total number of the Advisory Boards should not be below  15  and  not above 20. The  State  Government  should indicate 36 as  to who would be the Chairman and Secretary  respectively of  the  Board. Such Committee should be set up  within  six weeks from today and report of compliance shah be filed with the  Registry  of this Court within eight weeks.  The  first meeting  of  the Board should be within four  weeks  of  its constitution  and every such Board is directed to  send  its first proceeding to the Registry. N.P.V- 37