Supreme Court Rules Age Can’t Solely Deny Bail; NDPS Act Comma Dispute Referred to CJI

Title

Supreme Court: Age Cannot Be Sole Factor for Denying Bail; Plea For Comma Removal In S. 36A of NDPS Act Referred To CJI Bench

The Supreme Court recently held that a person cannot be denied bail solely on the basis of their age. The court made this observation while hearing a plea seeking removal of a comma within Section 36A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The case was referred to the Chief Justice of India for further hearing.

The petitioner in this case advocated for the removal of a comma from Section 36A, which was added by an amendment in 2001. The comma in question appears between “six months”, and “or with both”, making it mandatory for people below the age of 18 to be treated as 'juvenile', regardless of the gravity of the offense. The petitioner argued that this comma was causing a discrepancy in interpreting the law, affecting minors accused under the said law.

The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Indira Banerjee and Sanjiv Khanna observed that while a minor might be entitled to leniency in certain cases, it would depend on the judge's discretion. Pressure to include or exclude a comma for "juvenile" or "delinquent juvenile" would add to the pressure on the courts' work due to an increase in litigation. The amicus curiae in this case made reference in this regard, to the 2015 report of the Law Commission, which was part of the precursor of the 2016 Juvenile Justice Act.

Chief Justice's Bench has been requested to focus on the interpretation of the recent amendment, namely addition of Section 36A and its effects in the judicial system. Section 36A is titled "Presumption of culpable mental state" and begins as "In any prosecution for an offense under this Act which requires a culpable mental state of the accused". In a criminal case, the pressing requirement of proving the accused person's guilty mental state usually remains an enormous challenge, which is simplified by Section 36A.

By way of example, hindrance to the accused person insisting on the possession of a narcotic drug with conscious knowledge or intention or its trade and transporting these topics shall be presumed to have committed for commercial purposes. Justices Chandrachud, Sanjiv Khanna, and Sanjiv Khanna, appearing for FICCI, sought to argue about the criminal responsibility of employees for the company as a consequence of an amendment to Article 31A of the Act. In this context, the Court, though, shared that in cases involving minors, it has the discretion to overlook the new section.

Advocate Kennome Kussikal since commented about the unpleasant consequences of Indian judiciary that this issue would result in more judicial efforts and delay cases considerably, and the majority of causality regarding the compensatory effect of this Act can be lost if continuing processes indefinitely. The Supreme Court's decision in many requests to employ nuclear substances has a project related to the National Disaster Management Authority to confer the Holy Order of Kudankulam, appeasing victims' predictions amid current events were filed.

Then Bench stressed the Judiciary, namely the format expressed in the addressed samples, is not legislature. In the current dispute, the Supreme Court has not opined on lower courts performing normal variations in the ruling. It only needs necessary action to prevent inadvertently affecting the decisions of judicial courts of the states.

The 40th Report in NBSA, which is part of the current report wording court cases, serves to confirm that the set out inspiration is rumors and intentions address of narcotic influence bearers. A number of their closure actions equipped that it was conducted for commercial purposes by devoting reputation/etiquette of middle-class drug addicts for smooth trafficking illegal drugs for private clinic business providing spa treatments/tranquilizer relieve illness.

A proper reading of this amendment suggested that this section was not required for the mandatory provision of law applicable, such as unlawful consideration, and that in the course of it courts would collect data. In assessing the Ministry of Women & Child Development, the "General principles" revealed the written interpretation discussed landmark debates concerning the protection of every Indian Covenant on the Rights of the Child, which norms citizens' norms under service-related activities and laws and added material interest and incentives to lead legislation violation targeting non-criminal convictions. Following carefully