Dec 16 gangrape: Centre says juvenile can't be tried twice
- Arvind Kejriwal calls 'emergency' Assembly session to discuss Centre's notification on Lt Governor's role
- Celebrations in AIADMK camp as Jayalalithaa becomes Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu
- No full statehood rights to Delhi unless there is consensus, says Arun Jaitley
- Gujjar protest to continue as talks with Rajasthan govt fail
- Heat wave toll in Andhra Pradesh, Telangana reaches 223
The Centre on Monday told the Supreme Court that the law did not allow the juvenile, convicted by juvenile board in the December 16 gangrape, to be tried twice for the same offence as sought by the parents of victims who demanded his retrial by a criminal court.
The ministry of women and child development said it would be legally and constitutionally impermissible to put him on trial again as the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Board has already given its verdict of guilt of the juvenile and the prayer for his fresh trial has been rendered redundant.
"As such, under Article 20 of the Constitution as also Section 300 of criminal procedure code, there can be no second trial for the same offence, and the adjudication of guilt of the juvenile offender having been determined by the JJ Board under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, the second prayer does not survive nor was sustainable," the ministry said in its affidavit.
The Ministry's reply came on a plea filed by the father of the December 16 gangrape victim that the juvenility of an accused needs to be ascertained by a criminal court and not by the Juvenile Justice Board.
The issue came up for hearing before a bench headed by Justice B S Chauhan, which tagged the petition filed by victim's parents with the plea of BJP leader Subramanian Swamy who has also sought fresh interpretation of the term juvenile.
Swamy has also contended that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act provides for a "straitjacket" interpretation of the term 'juvenile' that a person below the age of 18 years is a minor and it was in violation of the United Nations Convention for the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) and Beijing Rules on the issue.