KATHMANDU, Feb 21: The Supreme Court (SC) has issued a mandamus addressed to the district courts regarding the timely adjudication of cases involving children mentioning legal precedent and statutes.
The SC issued the mandamus stating that the Kathmandu District Court had failed to prioritize cases related to minors and had not given a decision within the specified time.
One such case involved a minor named Buddha (name changed), who was detained in a juvenile center for the offense of mutilation by acid attack, according to the order of the Kathmandu District Court. The minor was arrested on April 11, 2021 and kept in the juvenile center as per the detention order dated April 23, 2021.
According to the Children Act 2075, the detention order of the case should be decided within 120 days. But since the detention is not according to the law, a petition was registered at the Kathmandu District Court on March 27, 2023, demanding that the juvenile child be freed from the control of the juvenile center and be handed over to the parents.
The Kathmandu District Court said that the juvenile child could not be handed over to the parents because the investigation report had not arrived. After that, a writ petition of habeas corpus was filed at the SC for illegal detention. The SC did not issue the habeas corpus order, but it issued a mandamus stating that the verdict should not be delayed citing the lack of evidence.
SC issues mandamus to resolve ‘juvenile cases’ within 120 days
It is mentioned in the order that in the case of delay in providing the documents, action should also be taken against the agency or individual concerned. There is a provision that the agency that has to send the test report must comply with the order immediately.
If an office does not send the written response demanded by the court within the prescribed time, the court can fine the chief or employee of that office an amount ranging from Rs 1,000 to Rs 10,000.
A year ago, the SC had issued directives to decide children's cases within 120 days. In a case of this nature, the SC had issued a directive order on March 23, 2023. But the Kathmandu District Court delayed deciding the case stating that the agency responsible for sending the evidence had not done so.
It was mentioned that even after writing to the concerned authorities to send the evidence and test reports to the Kathmandu District Court for the second time on May 4, 2023 and for the third time on July 4, 2023, the authorities concerned did not cooperate.
“If there is any evidence that needs to be received as per an order but it is not received from the relevant body, using Section 34 of the Administration of Justice Act, 2073, correspondence should be made with the relevant office and the evidence or test report should be obtained and the case should be resolved as soon as possible,” the SC’s order to the district court says.
The SC has explained that there was a delay in receiving the test report of the evidence from the relevant agencies in the case related to minors, and the case was not resolved within the time stipulated by the law.
It is mentioned in the order of the SC that in order to receive the evidence and test report to resolve the case on time, coordination should be done with the Central Child Justice Committee (CCJC).
In order to resolve the case quickly, the CCJC has been sent a letter and ordered to resolve the juvenile’s case quickly.
The SC’s explanation is that it is not legal to compel the court to set aside or order an incomplete case without understanding the evidence in a case where it is necessary to reach a conclusion after examining the evidence as a whole.
“Since the legal system has made all agencies compulsorily responsible for speeding up the work of justice administration, no agency and official has been allowed to escape from their obligations according to the law and to delay in complying with the order,” the SC said.
The SC said, “Prolonging cases beyond statutory timelines due to indifference from agencies or officials contravenes established legal provisions and delays in decision making are unacceptable.”
