Section 68 – Power to make rules – Juvenile Justice (Care And Protection Of Children) Act, 2000

(1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules to carry out the purposes of this Act:

Image Source: adeca.alabama.gov

[Provided that the Central Government may, frame model rules in respect of all or any of the matters with respect to which the State Government may make rules under this section, and where any such model rules have been framed in respect of any such matter, they shall apply to the State until the rules in respect of that matter is made by the State Government and while making any such rules, so far as is practicable, they conform to such model rules.]

(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing powers, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:—

(i) The term of office of the members of the Board and the manner in which such member may resign under sub-section (4) of Section 4;

(ii) The time of the meetings of the Board and the rules of procedure in regard to the transaction of business at its meeting under sub-section (1) of Section 5;

(iii) The management of observation homes including the standards and various types of services to be provided by them and the circumstances in which and the manner in which, the certification of the observation home may be granted or withdrawn and such other matters as are referred to in Section 8;

(iv) The management of special homes including the standards and various types of services to be provided by them and the circumstances in which and the manner in which, the certification of the special home may be granted or withdrawn and such other matters as are referred to in Section 9;

(v) Persons to whom any juvenile in conflict with law may be produced before the Board and the manner of sending such juvenile, to an observation home under sub-section (2) of Section 10;

(vi) Matters relating to removal of disqualification attaching to conviction of a juvenile under Section 19;

(vii) The qualifications of the Chairperson and members, and the tenure for which they may be appointed under sub-section (3) of Section 29;

(viii) The time of the meetings of the Committee and the rules of procedure in regard to the transaction of business at its meeting under sub-section (1) of Section 30;

(ix) The manner of making the report to the police and to the Committee and the manner cff sending and entrusting the child to children’s home pending the inquiry under sub-section (2) of Section 32;

(x) the management of children’s homes including the standards and nature of services to be provided by them, and the manner in which certification of a children’s home or recognition to a voluntary organisation may be granted or withdrawn under sub-section (2) [and the manner of registration of institutions under sub-section (3)] of Section 34;

(xi) Appointment of inspection committees for children’s homes, their tenure and purposes for which inspection committees may be appointed and such other matters as are referred to in Section 35;

(xii) Facilities to be provided by the shelter homes under sub-section (3) of Section 37;

(xiia) rehabilitation mechanism to be resorted to in adoption under sub-section (2), notification of guidelines under sub-section (3) and the manner of recognition of specialised adoption agencies under sub-section (4) of Section 41;]

(xiii) For carrying out the scheme of foster care programme of children under sub­section (3) of Section 42;

(xiv) For carrying out various schemes of sponsorship of children under sub-section (2) of Section 43;

(xv) Matters relating to after-care organisation under Section 44;

(xvi) For ensuring effective linkages between various agencies for facilitating rehabilitation and social integration of the child under Section 45;

(xvii) The purposes and the manner in which the Fund shall be administered under sub-section (3) of Section 61;

(xviii) Any other matter which is required to be, or may be, prescribed.

[(3) Every rule made by the Central Government under this Act shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before each House of Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in making any modification in the rule or both Houses agree that the rule should not be made, the rule shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so, however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that rule.]

[(4)] Every rule made by a State Government under this Act shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before the Legislature of that State.

Section 68 of the Act empowers the State Governments to make rules by notification in its Official Gazette on any of the eighteen matters specified in sub-section (2). The rules so made should be laid before the Legislature of the State concerned as soon as possible as required under sub-section (3) of this section.

The Supreme Court with reference to Sections 6 and 68 of J. J. Act, in Rain Suresh Singh v. Prabhat Singh alias Choutu Singh & another, held that the determination of the age of accused should be the age as recorded in School Admission Register and the opinion of Medical Board is to be preferred only when date of birth certificate from school first attended is not available. The same standard of proof is required to be applied for both in civil and criminal proceedings.

In the instant case the respondent was facing trial on the charge of committing murder of one Tribuvan Singh and appellant before the Supreme Court in this case is the uncle of the deceased. The date of birth of the accused as per school register was 10-2- 1987 and therefore he was estimated to be of an age between 20 to 22 years.

There being nothing on record to disbelieve the existence of the evidence of the father as well as teacher. Relying on these evidence should have been deduced that the accused was a juvenile on the date of occurrence. The order of High Court holding the accused juvenile suffered no legal infirmity and the appeal was dismissed.