JJ Act Overrides NIA Act, Juvenile Booked Under UAPA To Be Tried By Children's Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Considering the effect of the non-obstante clause, the Court held that the juvenile in conflict with law shall be tried by the Children's Court and not by Special Judge under the NIA Act.

Justice Sanjay Dwivedi observed, “On a mature consideration of the above discourse as well as the legal position, especially considering the effect of Section 1(4) of Act, 2015, it is hereby held that when the FIR is registered under a Scheduled Act prescribed under the NIA Act and a juvenile has been directed to be tried as an adult by the Children's Court, then the jurisdiction to try the case would vest in Children's Court and not in the Special Judge under the NIA Act.”

Background

As per the factual matrix of the case, the original case was registered by the National Investigation Agency which is pending before the Special Judge. An application was moved before the Special Court by juvenile in conflict with law where it was observed that on the date of incident, the juvenile was less than 18 years of age, Therefore, case was sent to the Juvenile Justice Board for disposal according to law.

The Juvenile Justice Board passed an order observing that although the juvenile was only 17 years of age on the date of incident, but he was physically and mentally fit and was competent enough to understand the consequences of the offences committed. Thus, the case was transferred under Section 18(3) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 to the court constituted under Section 25 of the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act. A notification was issued by the State Government declaring the Court of Session as Children's Court for speedy trial. However, the said Court was not a notified Court under the NIA Act.

Thus, a reference was made seeking guidance whether the case should be tried by the Special Judge under NIA Act or by a Children's Court.

The Special Public Prosecutor on behalf of the NIA argued that the NIA Act is a special legislation and under Section 11 confers powers on the Central Government to designate the Courts of Session as Special Court in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court by way of a notification in the official gazette for the trial of scheduled offences.

He further submitted that Section 13 provides for a non-obstante clause which provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, every scheduled offence investigated by the Agency shall be tried only by the Special Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. He also submitted that the scheduled offences under the NIA Act are serious in nature which involves national security, interest and sovereignty of the State and in order to deal with such serious situation, a special procedure has been laid down under the NIA Act. Since the offences in the case fall under this category, therefore, the trial should be conducted by a Special Court constituted under the NIA Act.

The amicus curiae submitted that the jurisdiction has been vested to the Children's Court and no other Court/Special Court can have jurisdiction in this regard. He also submitted that Section 1(4) of the JJ Act provides for a non-obstante clause stating that JJ Act shall apply to all matters concerning children in need of care and protection and children-in-conflict with law including apprehension, detention, prosecution, penalty or imprisonment, rehabilitation and social re-integration of children in conflict with law and also procedure and decisions or orders relating to rehabilitation, adoption, re-integration, and restoration of children in need of care and protection.

It was further argued that Section 1(4) JJ Act has overriding effect on any other legislation since it is also not only a special legislation but also later in point of time and, therefore, jurisdiction would vest only in the Children's Court and in no other Court.

Findings

After hearing the parties, the Court analysed the scope of the Juvenile Justice Act and noted that the purpose of a juvenile justice legislation is to provide assistance to the children who were being incarcerated along with adults and were subject to various abuses.

Referring to the non-obstante clauses provided under Section 1(4) of the Act of 2015, the Court noted that it provides that the Act will have overriding effect upon any other law for the time being in force and the provisions of the Act shall apply to the matters concerning children in need of care and protection as well as children in conflict with law.

“A non-obstante clause is normally incorporated in a section at the beginning of a statute which gives an overriding effect over a provision or an Act which is specifically mentioned in the provision itself. In a normal language it would also mean that inspite of the provisions of some other provisions or some other Act, the enactment in which the non-obstante clause has been incorporated will operate and a conflict, if any, gets fully resolved. The language used in the non-obstante clause is of utmost importance.”, the Court observed.

The Court referred to Union of India v. G.M. Kokil (1984) where the Supreme Court observed that a non-obstante clause is employed to give an overriding effect to certain provisions over some contrary provisions that may be found either in the same enactment or some other enactment, in order to avoid the operation and effect of all contrary provisions.

In the present case, both the NIA Act, 2008 and JJ Act, 2015 were in operation. The Court noted that the JJ Act provides for clear cut non-obstante over any other law for the time being in force whereas Section 13 of the NIA Act provides for non-obstante clause giving an overriding effect only upon the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Therefore answering the reference, the Court held that the JJ Act, 2015 will have an overriding effect over the NIA Act, 2008.

Case Title: In Reference Vs. Memo No.454/2024 Bhopal Dated 23/11/2024, Misc. Criminal Case No.1133/2025

Amicus Curiae: Senior Advocate Anil Khare with Advocate A.J. Mathew

Special Public Prosecutor for NIA: Advocate Deepesh Joshi