<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2014 (3) TMI 1073 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189853</link>
    <description>The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 was upheld as a beneficial law based on rehabilitation and India&#039;s juvenile justice commitments. The SC held that treating all persons below 18 as juveniles was a conscious legislative classification supported by reasonable classification under Article 14. It refused to read down the Act or hold it unconstitutional, finding the language clear and no omission for judicial correction. The Court also recognised that Board inquiry, protective procedure, and reformative disposition are materially distinct from ordinary criminal trial. Juveniles could not be excluded from the Act merely because the alleged offence was serious or heinous.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Jan 2018 12:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=456186" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (3) TMI 1073 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189853</link>
      <description>The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 was upheld as a beneficial law based on rehabilitation and India&#039;s juvenile justice commitments. The SC held that treating all persons below 18 as juveniles was a conscious legislative classification supported by reasonable classification under Article 14. It refused to read down the Act or hold it unconstitutional, finding the language clear and no omission for judicial correction. The Court also recognised that Board inquiry, protective procedure, and reformative disposition are materially distinct from ordinary criminal trial. Juveniles could not be excluded from the Act merely because the alleged offence was serious or heinous.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189853</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>