search
arrow-left Previous
Next arrow-right
Q: In February 2021, through which of the following cases did the Supreme court rule that in the cases when the Juvenile offender is under 18 years and above 16 years, he/she should be remitted to jurisdictional Juvenile Justice Board?
  • A. Devi Lal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
  • B. Rahul Sharma vs. National Insurance Company Limited
  • C. Satbir Singh vs. State of Haryana
  • D. Lakshmibai Chandragi vs. State of Karnataka
Correct Answer: Option A - In the case of Devilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh in February 2021, the Indian Supreme Court ruled that if an accused claims to be a juvenile (under 18 years of age) and above 16 years at the time of occurrence of the incident, then the matter must be examined by the Juvenile Justice Board, even if the claim arises after charges have been framed or during the course of a trial.
A. In the case of Devilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh in February 2021, the Indian Supreme Court ruled that if an accused claims to be a juvenile (under 18 years of age) and above 16 years at the time of occurrence of the incident, then the matter must be examined by the Juvenile Justice Board, even if the claim arises after charges have been framed or during the course of a trial.

Explanations:

In the case of Devilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh in February 2021, the Indian Supreme Court ruled that if an accused claims to be a juvenile (under 18 years of age) and above 16 years at the time of occurrence of the incident, then the matter must be examined by the Juvenile Justice Board, even if the claim arises after charges have been framed or during the course of a trial.