The Calcutta High Court has quashed all legal proceedings against a minor boy who was accused of rash driving a beacon-fitted vehicle and violating traffic rules, after finding that the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) failed to complete the mandatory inquiry within the time frame prescribed under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
On November 26, 2023, the minor was reportedly caught driving a car with a blue beacon and a “Judge” nameplate in Kolkata’s Park Street area, flouting a one-way restriction. Upon being stopped by the police, the boy admitted he had no driving licence and that the car belonged to his grandfather, a retired judge.
Subsequently, the police registered a case against him under various provisions, including:
- Rash and negligent driving
- False personation (for the “Judge” tag)
- Relevant sections of the Juvenile Justice Act
The juvenile first appeared before the JJB on November 28, 2023, and an inquiry was initiated.
Justice Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, in his ruling delivered on Tuesday, said the JJB was legally bound to complete the inquiry within four months from the date of first production of the juvenile, i.e., by March 27, 2024. Although the Act permits an extension of two more months, this must be backed by written reasons, which were missing in this case.
“Under the provisions of section 14(2), the inquiry shall have to be completed within a period of four months… unless the period is extended for a maximum period of two more months by the Board, after recording reasons in writing for such extension,” the judge observed.
The extension granted until February 2, 2024, lacked any recorded justification. As such, the court held that the delay violated statutory safeguards provided to juveniles, which are designed to shield them from prolonged legal exposure.
While quashing the proceedings, the court emphasized that protections under the JJ Act should not be misused.
“This court is not oblivious of the concern that juvenile protections may sometimes be misused. But at the same time, legal safeguards and timelines exist to prevent undue harassment and trauma to children,” the judgment added.
The ruling underscores the binding nature of statutory timelines under the Juvenile Justice Act and sends a message to juvenile boards across the country to strictly adhere to procedural mandates.
