Juvenile Delinquency Case: Advocate Kalyan K.C. on behalf of Saroj Rai vs. District Administration Office, Kathmandu et al. (5th Semester)

Juvenile Delinquency Case: Advocate Kalyan K.C. on behalf of Saroj Rai vs. District Administration Office, Kathmandu et al., Writ no. 0025 of the year 2066 BS, Date of Decision: 2066/06/26

Case: Habeas Corpus 
Petitioner: Advocate Kalyan K.C., working at the International Legal Foundation on behalf of Saroj Rai 
Respondents: District Administration Office, Kathmandu; Chief District Officer (CDO) and Prison Office, Jagannath Dewal, Kathmandu
Writ No: 0025 of the Year 2066 BS

This case is related to the jurisdiction over minor offenses and the unlawful detention of juveniles in adult prisons.

Facts of the Case:
The petitioner, Saroj Rai was a 14 year old minor. He was arrested by Metropolitan Police Circle under Section 2(a) of the Act Relating to Children, 2048 on 2066/06/10. He was kept in police custody until 2066/06/16 and subsequently produced before the District Administration Office for a Public Offense (Public Peace) charge.

On 2066/06/20, the CDO ordered a bail amount of Rs. 5,000. Because the minor was unable to pay, the CDO ordered him to be sent to the Juvenile Reform Home in Bhaktapur for pre-trial detention. However, due to lack of space, the reform home turned him away. Consequently, on 2066/06/21, he was sent to the Central Jail (Jagannath Dewal) and detained alongside adult prisoners.

The petitioner filed a writ of habeas corpus arguing that the CDO lacks jurisdiction under Section 55(2) of the Act Relating to Children, 2048 to try cases where a minor is the sole defendant. The petitioner claimed that the detention ordered by an executive authority violated constitutional provisions on personal liberty, child rights, the Act Relating to Children, 2048, and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), 1989. The respondents argued that the Some Public Offense (Punishment and Control) Act, 2027 explicitly empowers the CDO to hear public offense cases to maintain social peace and that the minor was sent to the regular prison only after the juvenile reform home lacked physical space.

Legal Issues: 

1. Whether the Chief District Officer (CDO) has the legal authority and jurisdiction to hear and adjudicate a Public Offense case where the sole defendant is a minor under 16 years of age?
2. Whether the writ should be issued to release Saroj Rai from detention?
3. Whether specific orders or directives need to be issued regarding pending cases of a similar nature?

Decision of the Court: 

Decision of Supreme Court:
Supreme Court held that under Section 55(2) of the Act Relating to Children, 2048, and Article 40(2) of the UNCRC, offenses involving minors as sole defendants must be tried strictly by a Juvenile Court or a Juvenile Bench within a District Court.

Therefore, the Supreme Court quashed the CDO’s bail order of Rs. 5,000 and transferred the ongoing case directly to the Kathmandu District Court for a lawful trial.

Regarding the plea for immediate release under habeas corpus, the Court declined to release the minor outright because criminal charges were active. Since the case was being transferred to a competent judicial body (the District Court) which would re-evaluate the evidence, facts and detention necessity under child friendly laws, an outright release via extraordinary jurisdiction was deemed inappropriate. To that extent, the habeas corpus request was quashed.

Additionally, the Court issued a directive to the Ministry of Home Affairs to immediately identify and transfer all pending juvenile-only cases from CDOs across all districts to their respective District Court Juvenile Benches.

Principles Established: 

1. It is not possible for civil servants to try criminal cases in a state that is a party to conventions like the ICCPR and the CRC and has a written constitution that provides for fundamental rights.
2. According to the constitutional system, the law that was valid until yesterday cannot remain valid even after the constitutional system has changed.
3. Since the provision that the Chief District Officer also tries cases where the only defendant is a minor under the age of 16, the right of the Chief District Officer to try cases where the only defendant is a minor under the age of 16, as per Section 5 of the Public (Crime and Control) Act, 2027, will be invalid 
4. The power given by Section 5 of the Some Public (Crime and Control) Act, 2027 to the CDO is limited up to adults only. It can’t hear the case involving an only minor defendant as it is contrary to Article 40(2) (ii) (iii) of the CRC and Section 55 of the Children’s Act, 2048 and such act will be invalid from the date of the decision by Prospective Overruling.

Relevance of Case:
This landmark case restricts executive overreach by stripping Chief District Officers of their quasi-judicial powers to try and detain minors under the Public Offense Act. It establishes the doctrine of prospective overruling regarding historical executive-led trials of children.

Source: Baseline Survey on Juvenile Justice System In Nepal, 2010 {KSL JOURNAL}