Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, an Advocate and Lecturer, was appointed as a Member of the Juvenile Justice Board, Mumbai, by Notification dated 18 June 2015 under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and the 2007 Rules. On 16 December 2016, the Principal Magistrate (Chairperson) filed a complaint against him alleging misconduct, misbehaviour and abuse of power. A show cause notice was issued on 23 December 2016. On 20 January 2017, the State Government instructed the Commissioner for Women and Child Development to form a committee to investigate the allegations. The committee submitted its report on 02 June 2017, which was forwarded to the State Government on 19 June 2017. After providing a copy of the report to the petitioner and considering his response, the State Government passed the impugned order dated 22/25 September 2017 removing him as a Member. The petitioner challenged this removal by way of writ petition. At the time of his appointment, the 2000 Act and 2007 Rules were in force. However, the 2000 Act was repealed effective 15 January 2016 when the 2015 Act came into force. The Rules under the 2015 Act came into force only in January 2018, after his removal. The petitioner argued that his removal should have been governed by the 2000 Act and Rule 92(2) of the 2007 Rules, which required the Selection Committee constituted under Rule 91 to hold an inquiry and recommend termination. He contended that this procedure was flouted and that the inquiry violated principles of natural justice because statements of certain witnesses were relied upon without providing copies or cross-examination. He also argued that the findings did not amount to misconduct and the penalty of removal was grossly disproportionate, casting an unjustified stigma. The State argued that the 2000 Act and 2007 Rules stood repealed and were not applicable; under the 2015 Act, the State Government was the prescribed authority, and it had appointed the inquiry committee and passed the removal order after following due process. The State maintained that natural justice was observed and the charges were serious, including misuse of a rubber stamp, non-attendance for full days, and allowing law students into the Observation Home without prior intimation. The High Court held that since the removal occurred after the 2000 Act and 2007 Rules were repealed, those provisions could not be relied upon. The Court distinguished the cited precedents as applying under the old regime and found that under the 2015 Act, the State Government had the authority to inquire and remove. The Court rejected the first contention and commenced analysis of natural justice, noting that the record showed the inquiry report was furnished to the petitioner. The final decision on all grounds was not fully available in the provided excerpt, but the reasoning indicated rejection of the petitioner's procedural challenge.
Headnote
A) Juvenile Justice - Removal of Member - Applicability of Repealed Enactment - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000; Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - The petitioner was appointed as a Member of the Juvenile Justice Board under the 2000 Act and 2007 Rules, but was removed after the 2000 Act and 2007 Rules stood repealed on 15 January 2016 when the 2015 Act came into force. The Court held that the 2000 Act and 2007 Rules could not be invoked to challenge the removal; the 2015 Act governed the field. (Paras 17-18)
B) Juvenile Justice - Inquiry and Removal Procedure - Competent Authority - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - The Court held that under the 2015 Act, the State Government is the prescribed authority to hold an inquiry and order removal of a Board member. In the present case, the State Government appointed an inquiry committee, forwarded the committee's report to the petitioner for response, and passed the removal order after considering the response. Therefore, the first contention that the inquiry was conducted by a committee not empowered under Rule 91/92 of the 2007 Rules was rejected. (Paras 19-24)
C) Natural Justice - Fair Hearing - Reliance on Adverse Material - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - The petitioner argued that copies of witness statements were not furnished and no opportunity of cross-examination was given, violating principles of natural justice. The Court commenced analysis of this contention but the available excerpt ended before a final conclusion; the record indicated that a copy of the inquiry report was provided to the petitioner and his response was considered before removal. (Paras 8, 13, 24-25)
Issue of Consideration
Whether removal of a member appointed under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 but removed after the 2015 Act came into force was governed by the 2000 Act and 2007 Rules; whether the inquiry and removal procedure was valid; whether principles of natural justice were violated; whether the penalty of removal was disproportionate.
Law Points
- Removal of member of Juvenile Justice Board governed by Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act
- 2015 after repeal of 2000 Act
- State Government is prescribed authority to hold inquiry and order removal
- Rule 91 and Rule 92(2) of 2007 Rules not applicable after repeal
- inquiry committee appointed by State Government valid
- principles of natural justice require opportunity to respond to inquiry report
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (07) 124
Writ Petition No. 428 of 2018
M.S. Sonak, Jitendra Jain
Dr. Uday Warunjikar a/w Mr. Aditya Kharkar, Mr. Jenish Jain for the Petitioner; Ms. P.H. Kantharia, G.P. for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 - State
Dipak Kumar Chattopadhyay
State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary of Department of Women and Children; Commissioner of Women and Child Development, Maharashtra State, Pune; District Women and Child Development Officer, Mumbai City
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of removal of the petitioner as a Member of the Juvenile Justice Board, Mumbai.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to quash and set aside the order dated 22/25 September 2017 removing him as Member of the JJB and to clear the stigma; he was not seeking reinstatement or financial benefits.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was removed from his position as Member of the JJB after an inquiry, allegedly without following the proper procedure under the applicable law, in violation of natural justice, and with a disproportionate penalty causing stigma.
Previous Decisions
A committee appointed by the State Government submitted an inquiry report on 02 June 2017; the State Government passed the removal order on 22/25 September 2017; the High Court issued rule in the writ petition on 07 December 2017 and expedited hearing.
Issues
Whether the removal of the petitioner, appointed under the 2000 Act and 2007 Rules but removed after the 2015 Act came into force, was governed by the 2000 Act and 2007 Rules or by the 2015 Act.
Whether the inquiry and removal procedure was valid, considering the requirement of Rule 91 and Rule 92(2) of the 2007 Rules for inquiry by a Selection Committee.
Whether the inquiry violated principles of natural justice by relying on witness statements without providing copies or opportunity of cross-examination to the petitioner.
Whether the findings constituted misconduct or misuse of power, and whether the penalty of removal was grossly disproportionate and caused unwarranted stigma.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner's first contention was that since he was appointed under the 2000 Act and 2007 Rules, his removal ought to be governed by those provisions; only the Selection Committee constituted under Rule 91 of the 2007 Rules was empowered to hold an inquiry and recommend termination under Rule 92(2), and this procedure was flouted.
Petitioner's alternative argument was that the inquiry violated principles of natural justice because statements of Priya Gavade, Sandhya Ballal and R.R. Kulkarni were relied upon without providing copies or opportunity to cross-examine, and the adverse material was not disclosed until after removal.
Petitioner further argued that the committee's findings did not constitute misconduct and the penalty of removal was grossly disproportionate, casting unjustified stigma on him as a senior citizen and professional.
Respondents argued that the 2000 Act and 2007 Rules stood repealed and were not applicable; the 2015 Act was in force, and under it, the State Government was the prescribed authority to hold inquiry and order removal.
Respondents submitted that the decisions relied upon by the petitioner were distinguishable as they were under the 2000 Act and 2007 Rules; Anita Vipat supported the State's position as the State Government was the competent authority under the 2015 Act.
Respondents contended that natural justice was observed: a copy of the inquiry report was provided to the petitioner and his response was considered before the removal order; no demand for cross-examination was made and no prejudice was shown.
Respondents submitted that some of the established charges were serious, including preparing a private rubber stamp for official use, not attending proceedings for the full day, not getting along with the Magistrate, sitting on the Magistrate's chair, and allowing 30 to 35 law students into the Observation Home without prior intimation; therefore, the penalty was not disproportionate.
Ratio Decidendi
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 and the 2007 Rules stood repealed on 15 January 2016 when the 2015 Act came into force. Therefore, a member appointed under the 2000 Act but removed after the 2015 Act came into force is governed by the 2015 Act, not the 2007 Rules. Under the 2015 Act, the State Government is the prescribed authority to hold an inquiry and order removal of a Board member. In this case, the State Government appointed an inquiry committee, provided a copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner, considered his response, and then passed the removal order; hence, the procedure was not vitiated by lack of authority. The 2007 Rules, particularly Rule 91 and Rule 92(2), were not applicable after repeal.
Judgment Excerpts
The Petitioner challenges the order dated 22/25 September 2017 (Exhibit H) by which he was removed as a Member of the Juvenile Justice Board (“JJB”), Mumbai.
Since the 2000 Act and the 2007 Rules do not apply, the Petitioner cannot fault the impugned action on the ground that the Selection Committee did not conduct the inquiry against the Petitioner constituted under Rule 91 or that the removal of the Petitioner is not based on the inquiry report and on recommendation of the Selection Committee constituted under Rule 91 of the 2007 Rules.
In the present case, there is no dispute, and even the records show that it was the State Government that appointed the committee to inquire into the complaints against the Petitioner.
Procedural History
The petitioner was appointed as a Member of the Juvenile Justice Board, Mumbai, by Notification dated 18 June 2015. On 16 December 2016, the Principal Magistrate (Chairperson) filed a complaint against the petitioner alleging misconduct, misbehaviour and abuse of power. A show cause notice was issued on 23 December 2016. On 20 January 2017, the State Government instructed the Commissioner for Women and Child Development to form a committee to investigate the allegations. The committee submitted its report on 02 June 2017, which was forwarded to the State Government on 19 June 2017. After providing a copy of the report to the petitioner and considering his response, the State Government passed the impugned removal order dated 22/25 September 2017. The petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging this removal. The High Court issued rule on 07 December 2017 and expedited the hearing. The matter was reserved on 26 June 2025 and pronounced on 01 July 2025.
Acts & Sections
- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000:
- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007: Rule 91, Rule 92(2)
- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015:
- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2018:
