Comprehension
On repeal of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 and on the enforcement of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, the procedure to be followed when a claim of juvenility is raised before any court, other than a Board is stipulated under Section 9(2) and (3). The same reads as:
“In case a person alleged to have committed an offence claims before a court other than a Board, that the person is a child or was a child on the date of commission of the offence, or if the court itself is of the opinion that the person was a child on the date of commission of the offence, the said court shall make an inquiry, take such evidence as may be necessary (but not an affidavit) to determine the age of such person, and shall record a finding on the matter, stating the age of the person as nearly as may be: Provided that such a claim may be raised before any court and it shall be recognized at any stage, even after final disposal of the case, and such a claim shall be determined in accordance with the provisions contained in this Act and the rules made thereunder even if the person has ceased to be a child on or before the date of commencement of this Act. If the court finds that a person has committed an offence and was a child on the date of commission of such offence, it shall forward the child to the Board for passing appropriate orders and the sentence, if any, passed by the court shall be deemed to have no effect.”
“In case a person alleged to have committed an offence claims before a court other than a Board, that the person is a child or was a child on the date of commission of the offence, or if the court itself is of the opinion that the person was a child on the date of commission of the offence, the said court shall make an inquiry, take such evidence as may be necessary (but not an affidavit) to determine the age of such person, and shall record a finding on the matter, stating the age of the person as nearly as may be: Provided that such a claim may be raised before any court and it shall be recognized at any stage, even after final disposal of the case, and such a claim shall be determined in accordance with the provisions contained in this Act and the rules made thereunder even if the person has ceased to be a child on or before the date of commencement of this Act. If the court finds that a person has committed an offence and was a child on the date of commission of such offence, it shall forward the child to the Board for passing appropriate orders and the sentence, if any, passed by the court shall be deemed to have no effect.”
Question: 1
From which of the following dates was the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 implemented?
From which of the following dates was the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 implemented?
Show Hint
Always distinguish between the date an Act receives assent and the date it is notified for enforcement — they can differ.
Updated On: Aug 17, 2025
- January 16, 2015
- January 15, 2016
- February 16, 2016
- February 15, 2015
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is B
Solution and Explanation
Step 1: Background of the Act.
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 replaced the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 to strengthen provisions for both children in conflict with law and children in need of care and protection.
Step 2: Date of enforcement.
While the Act received Presidential assent on 31 December 2015, it came into force on 15 January 2016 as notified by the Government of India.
Step 3: Eliminating incorrect options.
- (A) January 16, 2015 and (D) February 15, 2015 are dates prior to the passing of the Act.
- (C) February 16, 2016 is after the notified enforcement date.
\[ \boxed{Answer: B} \]
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 replaced the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 to strengthen provisions for both children in conflict with law and children in need of care and protection.
Step 2: Date of enforcement.
While the Act received Presidential assent on 31 December 2015, it came into force on 15 January 2016 as notified by the Government of India.
Step 3: Eliminating incorrect options.
- (A) January 16, 2015 and (D) February 15, 2015 are dates prior to the passing of the Act.
- (C) February 16, 2016 is after the notified enforcement date.
\[ \boxed{Answer: B} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 2
‘A’ is accused of having committed an offence on January 1, 2022. He attained the age of 16 on March 31, 2022. On the date of hearing, he claimed that on the date of commission of the offence, he was a child. Which of the following statement is true?
‘A’ is accused of having committed an offence on January 1, 2022. He attained the age of 16 on March 31, 2022. On the date of hearing, he claimed that on the date of commission of the offence, he was a child. Which of the following statement is true?
Show Hint
For juvenility, age at the date of offence is decisive, not at the date of trial.
Updated On: Aug 17, 2025
- ‘A’ can raise the plea of juvenility since he was child on the date of commission of the offence.
- ‘A’ cannot be allowed to raise the plea of juvenility.
- For raising the plea of juvenility, the age on the date of trial is considered and not the age on the date of commission of offence.
- All are true.
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
Step 1: Determining juvenility under the Juvenile Justice Act.
Section 9(2) and (3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 provides that juvenility is determined based on the age on the date of commission of the offence, not the date of trial.
Step 2: Application to the case.
Since ‘A’ was below 18 on January 1, 2022, he is legally considered a child for the purpose of claiming juvenility, even if he turned 16 (or more) before trial.
Step 3: Eliminating incorrect options.
- (B) is wrong as law permits raising plea anytime, even after disposal of the case.
- (C) is incorrect because it wrongly states that trial date age matters.
- (D) is wrong because both (B) and (C) are incorrect.
\[ \boxed{Answer: A} \]
Section 9(2) and (3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 provides that juvenility is determined based on the age on the date of commission of the offence, not the date of trial.
Step 2: Application to the case.
Since ‘A’ was below 18 on January 1, 2022, he is legally considered a child for the purpose of claiming juvenility, even if he turned 16 (or more) before trial.
Step 3: Eliminating incorrect options.
- (B) is wrong as law permits raising plea anytime, even after disposal of the case.
- (C) is incorrect because it wrongly states that trial date age matters.
- (D) is wrong because both (B) and (C) are incorrect.
\[ \boxed{Answer: A} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 3
Which of the following statements is true, if the plea of juvenility is raised before the court?
Which of the following statements is true, if the plea of juvenility is raised before the court?
Show Hint
In plea of juvenility cases, the Court itself assesses evidence and records findings on age.
Updated On: Aug 17, 2025
- The Court can decide the plea of juvenility only on the basis of the affidavit of the claimant.
- The Court shall get the enquiry conducted by collector of the district.
- The Court shall take such evidence as it considers necessary and decide the age of the claimant.
- Both (A) and (B) are true.
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is C
Solution and Explanation
Step 1: Statutory requirement.
Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 requires the Court to conduct an inquiry, take necessary evidence, and record a finding regarding the age of the person.
Step 2: Why not (A) or (B)?
- (A) is incorrect because an affidavit alone is insufficient; evidence must be taken.
- (B) is incorrect because the Act does not mandate the Collector to conduct the enquiry; the Court can do it itself or direct appropriate authority.
\[ \boxed{Answer: C} \]
Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 requires the Court to conduct an inquiry, take necessary evidence, and record a finding regarding the age of the person.
Step 2: Why not (A) or (B)?
- (A) is incorrect because an affidavit alone is insufficient; evidence must be taken.
- (B) is incorrect because the Act does not mandate the Collector to conduct the enquiry; the Court can do it itself or direct appropriate authority.
\[ \boxed{Answer: C} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 4
‘A’ is accused of committing an offence on a given day. He claims that he was child on such day. Court conducts an enquiry and records a finding that he was child on the date of offence. Which of the following statements holds good?
‘A’ is accused of committing an offence on a given day. He claims that he was child on such day. Court conducts an enquiry and records a finding that he was child on the date of offence. Which of the following statements holds good?
Show Hint
Once juvenility is established, the regular court must send the case to the Juvenile Justice Board — it cannot continue trial itself.
Updated On: Aug 17, 2025
- The Court is bound to try the entire case and decide whether the claimant has committed the offence.
- The order of conviction passed by the Court after recording finding that the accused is a child, is valid.
- The Court shall forward the matter to Juvenile Justice Board for decision and appropriate orders.
- The Court shall set the accused free.
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is C
Solution and Explanation
Step 1: Legal procedure after finding of juvenility.
If a person is found to be a child on the date of the offence, Section 9(3) of the Juvenile Justice Act mandates that the Court must forward the case to the Juvenile Justice Board for disposal in accordance with the Act.
Step 2: Why not other options?
- (A) is incorrect because after such finding, regular trial jurisdiction ceases.
- (B) is invalid because conviction by regular court is barred after such finding.
- (D) is incorrect because the matter still requires adjudication by the Board; accused is not automatically acquitted.
\[ \boxed{Answer: C} \]
If a person is found to be a child on the date of the offence, Section 9(3) of the Juvenile Justice Act mandates that the Court must forward the case to the Juvenile Justice Board for disposal in accordance with the Act.
Step 2: Why not other options?
- (A) is incorrect because after such finding, regular trial jurisdiction ceases.
- (B) is invalid because conviction by regular court is barred after such finding.
- (D) is incorrect because the matter still requires adjudication by the Board; accused is not automatically acquitted.
\[ \boxed{Answer: C} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 5
The Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 contemplates certain children to be kept in special homes. Which of the following children can be kept in special homes?
The Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 contemplates certain children to be kept in special homes. Which of the following children can be kept in special homes?
Show Hint
Special homes = rehabilitation institutions for children in conflict with law, not for general care of orphaned or neglected children.
Updated On: Aug 17, 2025
- Orphaned children
- Abused children
- Neglected children
- Children in conflict with law
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is D
Solution and Explanation
Step 1: Understanding “special homes” under JJ Act, 2015.
Section 2(56) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 defines “special home” as an institution for the reception and rehabilitation of children in conflict with law.
Step 2: Differentiating from other facilities.
- Orphaned, abused, and neglected children are generally placed in “children’s homes” or “observation homes” depending on their needs, not in special homes.
- Special homes are specifically for those found guilty of offences and requiring
rehabilitation under the orders of the Juvenile Justice Board.
Step 3: Conclusion.
Thus, only option (D) matches the statutory definition. \[ \boxed{Answer: D} \]
Section 2(56) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 defines “special home” as an institution for the reception and rehabilitation of children in conflict with law.
Step 2: Differentiating from other facilities.
- Orphaned, abused, and neglected children are generally placed in “children’s homes” or “observation homes” depending on their needs, not in special homes.
- Special homes are specifically for those found guilty of offences and requiring
rehabilitation under the orders of the Juvenile Justice Board.
Step 3: Conclusion.
Thus, only option (D) matches the statutory definition. \[ \boxed{Answer: D} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 6
Which of the following is referred to as ‘Orphan’ in the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015?
Which of the following is referred to as ‘Orphan’ in the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015?
Show Hint
Under JJ Act, “orphan” has a broad meaning — absence of biological, adoptive, or legal guardian qualifies.
Updated On: Aug 17, 2025
- A child who is without a biological parent
- A child who is without an adoptive parent
- A child who is without a legal guardian
- All the above
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is D
Solution and Explanation
Step 1: Statutory definition under JJ Act, 2015.
Section 2(42) defines “orphan” as a child:
1. Who is without a biological parent, or
2. Without an adoptive parent, or
3. Without a legal guardian.
Step 2: Interpretation.
Since any of these situations qualifies a child as an orphan under the Act, all the listed options are correct.
Step 3: Conclusion.
Option (D) includes all statutory conditions. \[ \boxed{Answer: D} \]
Section 2(42) defines “orphan” as a child:
1. Who is without a biological parent, or
2. Without an adoptive parent, or
3. Without a legal guardian.
Step 2: Interpretation.
Since any of these situations qualifies a child as an orphan under the Act, all the listed options are correct.
Step 3: Conclusion.
Option (D) includes all statutory conditions. \[ \boxed{Answer: D} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Top Questions on Juvenile Court
- What is the difference between a hypothesis test and a confidence interval?
- AILET PhD - 2024
- Criminology
- Juvenile Court
- For dealing with children, which police organization is specified under the JJ Act?
- AILET PhD - 2024
- Criminology
- Juvenile Court
- Match List I with List II:
List I
List II
A. The crime of obtaining key pieces
of personal informationi. Misogyny B. Murder of Son or Daughter ii. Stalking C. Unwanted contact that
communicates threat/feariii. Identity theft D. Hatred for Women iv. Filicide - AILET PhD - 2024
- Criminology
- Juvenile Court
- Children's Court is defined under which Act?
- AILET PhD - 2024
- Criminology
- Juvenile Court
- Organizations involved in institutional rehabilitation of Children in Need of Care and Protection for short term stay are:
1. Fit Facility
2. Open Shelter
3. Place of Safety
4. Childrens Home- AILET PhD - 2024
- Criminology
- Juvenile Court
View More Questions
Questions Asked in CLAT PG exam
- The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Nil Ratan Kundu and another v. Abhijit Kundu’ 2008(3) Apex Court Judgements 232 (SC), while granting the custody to the maternal grandparents observed: In our judgement, the law relating to custody of a child is fairly well settled and it is this. In deciding a difficult and complex question as to custody of minor, a Court of law should keep in mind relevant statutes and the rights flowing therefrom. But such cases cannot be decided solely by interpreting legal provisions. It is a humane problem in live in relationship and is required to be solved with human touch. A Court while dealing with custody cases, is neither bound by statutes nor by strict rules of evidence or procedure nor by precedents. In selecting proper guardian of a minor, the paramount consideration should be the welfare and well-being of the child. In selecting a guardian, the Court is exercising parens patriae jurisdiction and is expected, may bound, to give due weight to a child’s ordinary comfort, contentment, health, education, intellectual development and favorable surroundings. But over and above physical comforts, moral and ethical values cannot be ignored. They are equally, or we may say, even more important, essential and indispensable consideration. If the minor is old enough to form an intelligent preference or judgement, the Court must consider such preference as well, though the final decision should rest with the Court as to what is conducive to the welfare of the minor.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Gaurav Nagpal v. Semedha Nagpal’-(2009)1 SCC 42, while giving paramount importance to the welfare of the child, which should include moral and ethical values, besides ethical well-being, observed as under:
When the court is confronted with conflicting demands made by the parents, each time it has to justify the demands. The Court has not only to look at the issue on legalistic basis, in such matters human angles are relevant for deciding those issues. The Court then does not give emphasis on what the parties say, it has to exercise a jurisdiction which is aimed at the welfare of the minor. As observed recently in Mausami Moitra Ganguli case, the Court has to give due weightage to the child’s ordinary contentment, health, education, intellectual development and favorable surroundings, but over and above physical comforts, the moral and ethical values have also to be noted. They are equal if not more important than the others.
(Extracts from Jaswinder Singh and Another vs Surjit Singh, AIR 2010 (NOC) 425 (P. & H.))- CLAT PG - 2025
- Family Laws
- The Companies Act, 2013 does not deal with insolvency and bankruptcy when the companies are unable to pay their debts or the aspects relating to the revival and rehabilitation of the companies and their winding up if revival and rehabilitation is not possible. In principle, it cannot be doubted that the cases of revival or winding up of the company on the ground of insolvency and inability to pay debts are different from cases where companies are wound up under Section 271 of the Companies Act, 2013. The two situations are not identical. Under Section 271 of the Companies Act, 2013, even a running and financially sound company can also be wound up for the reasons in clauses (a) to (e). The reasons and grounds for winding up under Section 271 of the Companies Act, 2013 are vastly different from the reasons and grounds for the revival and rehabilitation scheme as envisaged under the IBC. The two enactments deal with two distinct situations and in our opinion, they cannot be equated when we examine whether there is discrimination or violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. For the revival and rehabilitation of the companies, certain sacrifices are required from all quarters, including the workmen. In case of insolvent companies, for the sake of survival and regeneration, everyone, including the secured creditors and the Central and State Government, are required to make sacrifices. The workmen also have a stake and benefit from the revival of the company, and therefore unless it is found that the sacrifices envisaged for the workmen, which certainly form a separate class, are onerous and burdensome so as to be manifestly unjust and arbitrary, we will not set aside the legislation,solely on the ground that some or marginal sacrifice is to be made by the workers. We would also reject the argument that to find out whether there was a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India or whether the right to life under Article 21 Constitution of India was infringed, we must word by word examine the waterfall mechanism envisaged under the Companies Act, 2013, where the company is wound up in terms of grounds (a) to (e) of Section 271 of the Companies Act, 2013; and the rights of the workmen when the insolvent company is sought to be revived, rehabilitated or wound up under the Code. The grounds and situations in the context of the objective and purpose of the two enactments are entirely different.
(Extracted, with edits and revision, from the judgement in Moser Baer Karamchari Union Thr. President Mahesh Chand Sharma v. Union of India and Ors, 2023 SCC Online SC 547)- CLAT PG - 2025
- Company Law
- Ahmadi, J. (as he then was) speaking for himself and Punchhi, J., endorsed the recommendations in the following words-The time is ripe for taking stock of the working of the various Tribunals set up in the country after the insertion of Articles 323-A and 323-B in the Constitution. After the incorporation of these two articles, Acts have been enacted where-under tribunals have been constituted for dispensation of justice. Sufficient time has passed, and experience gained in these last few years for taking stock of the situation with a view to finding out if they have served the purpose and objectives for which they were constituted. Complaints have been heard in regard to the functioning of other tribunals as well and it is time that a body like the Law Commission of India has a comprehensive look-in with a view to suggesting measures for their improved functioning. That body can also suggest changes in the different statutes and evolve a model on the basis whereof tribunals may be constituted or reconstituted with a view to ensuring greater independence. An intensive and extensive study needs to be undertaken by the Law Commission in regard to the Constitution of tribunals under various statutes with a view to ensuring their independence so that the public confidence in such tribunals may increase and the quality of their performance may improve.
Before parting with the case, it is necessary to express our anguish over the ineffectiveness of the alternative mechanism devised for judicial review. The judicial review and remedy are the fundamental rights of the citizens. The dispensation of justice by the tribunal is much to be desired.
(Extracted with Edits from R.K. Jain v. Union of India, 1993 (4) SCC 119)- CLAT PG - 2025
- Constitutional Laws
- The elements of tort of negligence consist in – (a) duty of care; (b) duty is owed to the plaintiff; (c) the duty has been carelessly breached. Negligence does not entail liability unless the exacts a duty in the given circumstances to observe care. Duty is an obligation recognised by law to avoid conduct fraught with unreasonable risk of damage to others. The question whether duty exists in a particular situation involves determination of law. Hence, three ingredients are necessary for the existence of a duty of care: (i) foreseeability of the damage, (ii) proximity of relationship between the parties; and (iii) whether it is “just, fair and reasonable” that the law should impose a duty of care. In Caparo Industries Plc. v. Dickman, 1990 2AC 605, the court held that breach of duty is concerned with the standard of care that ought to have been adopted in the circumstances and whether the defendant’s conduct fell below that standard i.e., whether he was careless.
The court while quoting Rajkot Municipal Corporation v. Manjulben Jayantilal Nakum, 1997 stated that as a tort, negligence consists of legal duty to take care and breach of that duty. Duty determines whether the type of loss suffered by the plaintiff in the particular way in which to occurred can ever be actionable. The division of negligence into duty, breach and consequent damage is convenient for the purpose of exposition but it can be confusing because the issues will often overlap. The process of determining a breach of duty involves three steps: First, it is necessary to ascertain the qualities of the reasonable person, given the qualities attributed to him, would have taken in the circumstances. The factors that are permissible to take into account in this regard are prescribed by law, but the amount of care that the reasonable person would have taken is a question of fact. Thirdly, it must be determined whether the defendant took less care than the reasonable person would have taken.
(Extracts from Managing Director, Kerala Tourism Development Corporation Limited v. Deepti Singh and Ors., 2019 SC)- CLAT PG - 2025
- Law of Torts
- Article 14 of the Constitution stipulates that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of laws within the territory of India. Article 15(1) states that the State should not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. Article 15(4) stipulates that nothing in Article 15 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. Article 16 deals with equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. Clause (1) of Article 16 guarantees equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. Clause (2) stipulates that no citizen shall be discriminated in or be ineligible for any employment or office under the State on the grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them. Clause (4) of the provision states that nothing in Article 16 shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens, which in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State. The purpose of the equal opportunity principle in Article 16(1) and the reservation provision in Article 16(4) has emerged as a focal point of the jurisprudence on reservations in this Court. A discussion of the journey of the competing models of equality that the Court has espoused and their evolution over the course of the years is necessary to understand the constitutional vision on equality.
The impugned constitutional amendments by which Article 16 (4-A) and 16 (4-B) have been inserted, flow from Article 16 (4). They do not alter the structure of Article 16 (4). They retain the controlling factors or the compelling reasons which enables the State to provide for reservation keeping in mind the overall efficiency of the state administration under article 335. Sub-categorization within a class is a constitutional requirement to secure substantive equality in the event that there is a distinction between two sections of a class; Sub-classification must not lead to the exclusion of one of the categories in the class. A model that provides sufficient opportunities to all categories of the class must be adopted; and Sub-classification among a class must be on a reasonable basis.
Justice Bela Trivedi opined, in dissent, that presidential list of scheduled castes notified under Article 341 cannot be altered by the States. Any change to this list can only be made by a law enacted by Parliament. Sub-classification, according to her would amount to tampering with the Presidential List and undermine the object Article 341, which aims to eliminate political influence in the SC-ST List. Further, she emphasised the importance of adhering to the rule of plain and literal interpretation. She mentions that any preferential treatment for a sub-class within the presidential list would deprive other classes within the same category of their benefits. In the absence of executive or legislative power, state lack the competence to sub-classify castes and the benefit reserved for all SCs. Allowing states to do so would constitute a colourable exercise of power, which is impermissible under law. Justice Trivedi concluded by affirming that affirmative action by States must remain within constitutional boundaries and held that the law laid down in E.V. Chinnaiah case was correct and should be upheld.
(Extract from The State of Punjab & Ors. v. Davinder Singh & Ors. 2024 SC)- CLAT PG - 2025
- Constitutional Laws
View More Questions