KATHMANDU, Sept 15: The Supreme Court (SC) has issued a mandamus to ensure the prompt resolution of juvenile cases within 120 days in accordance with the law. The SC has directed the district court to expedite the resolution of cases after juvenile cases have been unnecessarily delayed in juvenile correctional houses during judicial custody for preliminary investigation. This decision was made by the full bench of Justices Prakashman Singh Raut, Sapana Pradhan Malla, and Til Prasad Shrestha while addressing a writ petition related to habeas corpus.
The SC issued this order in the context of a 17-year-old boy who was held in the Juvenile Correction Home Bhaktapur during preliminary investigation in judicial custody. The full text of the verdict, dated March 23, was recently made public. On April 24, 2022, a child was arrested by the District Police Office, Dolakha. On June 14, 2022, the Dolakha District Court filed an attempted homicide charge against the boy. The following day, the district court ordered the child's detention in a juvenile correction home for judicial custody, and he was subsequently placed in the Juvenile Correction Home Bhaktapur.
Article 20 (9) of the Constitution and the Children's Act stipulate that cases should be resolved within 120 days from the date of registration. However, cases that are not resolved within the stipulated time result in children being detained in juvenile correction homes for extended periods.
SC's Commendable Decision on Juvenile Case Resolution
On January 2, 2023, a writ petition for habeas corpus was filed in the SC on behalf of the child, alleging that he had been detained due to the case's unresolved status for six months. The petition sought the child's release from illegal custody and hand over to his parents.
The Dolakha District Court cited various technical reasons for the case's delayed resolution, including delays caused by the complainant, victim, and a pending autopsy report. The SC emphasized that children's cases should not be unduly prolonged for any reason. “The reasons for the delay in deciding the juvenile case and the reasons for not deciding it within the stipulated period should be clearly stated,” the SC stated, “The court should ensure the supervision of the subordinate court to prioritize issues related to juvenile justice and provide necessary guidance.”
In its judgment, the SC also stressed the importance of conducting laboratory tests promptly and submitting test reports on time in cases involving children. Additionally, the SC ordered written reports to be sent to the Central Police Forensic Science Laboratory through the National Forensic Science Laboratory and Police Headquarters. The SC said, “If it is determined that resolving the case within four months is impractical, a directive has been issued to establish a speedy, child-friendly, and effective juvenile justice system that maintains uniformity in the judicial approach to juvenile justice orders issued by this court.”
Despite Section 37 of the Children's Act, which allows for the case's resolution, the boy remained in juvenile correctional custody. The SC noted that the practice of detaining children in juvenile correction homes for extended periods due to delays in case hearing must be discontinued. According to the SC, while certain crimes may be considered serious or heinous, their seriousness may vary depending on the specific circumstances and the age of the juvenile. The SC emphasized that the situation of both the victim and the juvenile should be taken into account when deciding whether to keep them in a juvenile correction home or release them to their parents.
The SC further stated that when children in conflict with the law are integrated into society, both society and the victim may feel insecure and unfair. Therefore, the rights of the victim must also be considered.
“In the case of juveniles, punishment should be determined based on their age,” the SC stated. For cases involving homicide, the SC ordered to provide the reasons and grounds for not deciding within the stipulated time to be disclosed. The SC also ordered that the case be heard continuously and resolved as quickly as possible to ensure child-friendly justice by issuing a directive.
Additionally, legal provisions allow children to be entrusted to an organization or individual responsible for protecting children's rights when no father, mother, family member, guardian, or other suitable guardian is available, subject to the condition that the child must be presented when required. The decision to entrust a child to an organization or individual is based on the child's physical and mental condition, age, and the circumstances of the offense.
