Rolland Joffee vs Juvenile Welfare Board

Susanta Chatterji, J.—The present writ petition was moved on April 10, 1991, without notice and this Court entertained the same dispensing with compliance of Rule 27A of the Writ Rules considering the urgency of the situation. This Court made it clear that the aspect of jurisdiction of the Juvenile Welfare Board to exercise the acts as envisaged under the Junenile Justice Act, 1986, would be considered and the matter was directed to appear as Listed Motion. Petitioners were directed to serve the Respondents and file affidavit of service. Interim order was granted staying the operation of the impugned order till April 22, 1991. Mr. Advocate-General appears for the State, Mr. Sett, learned Advocate, appears for the Junenile Welfare Board and Mr. Bidyut K. Mukherjee, learned Advocate, appears for the Magistrate First Class and Chairman of the said Board respectively.

Having heard Mr. Sen, learned Advocate for the Petitioners and the learned Advocates for the Respondents, this Court finds that the Petitioners, Rolland Joffee and Ian Smith, Director and Producer of the film "City of Joy" have prayed, inter alia, for a writ of Mandamus commanding the Respondents to forthwith withdraw, cancel, recall and rescind the impugned proceedings initiated before the Juvenile Welfare Board in respect of the film ''City of Joy'' and to forbear them from giving any effect thereto in any manner whatsoever.

The impugned order dated April 3, 1991, being in Annex. ''B'' to the petition indicates, inter alia, that the Respondent No. 2, Magistrate. First Class and Chairman, Juvenile Welfare Board, West Bengal, at Dhrubashram, Ariadaha. has directed the writ Petitioners to appear before the Board on April 10, 1991, in view of the complaint lodged by Professor Palit, that is, Mr. P.N. Palit, against the Director and Producer of the film ''City of Joy'', and in view of the report submitted by the D.C. D.D.I., Calcutta Police, followed by the fresh complaint of said Prof. Palit dated April 3, 1991. The complaint lodged by Prof. Palit and the report of the D.C. D.D.I., Calcutta Police, have been placed before this Court.

The only point raised before this Court is as to the jurisdiction of the Respondent Juvenile Welfare Board to proceed with the matter or as to whether the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, confers any jurisdiction on the said Board in view of the complaint and the reports as aforesaid. Both the sides have agreed that this Court will have to consider as to whether the Juvenile Welfare Board has the jurisdiction to proceed with the matter or not. It is also agreed that if this Court finds that the said Board has got no jurisdiction, the writ petition would be allowed and the proceedings pending thereto would be quashed. It is equally agreed that if this Court finds that the said Board has the jurisdiction to consider the matter, this Court will not adjudicate the matter so far as the merit is concerned. Mr. Sen, learned Advocate for the Petitioners, has, however, submitted that if there is any doubt in the mind of the Court as to whether the Board has jurisdiction or not, leave may be given to file affidavits by both sides and the matter may be gone into in depth and, until the matter is disposed of, the interim order granted on April 10, 1991, may be allowed to continue.

With great anxieties, this Court has heard the learned Advocates for the parties. It is true that this Court will have to consider the limited aspect of the matter as to whether the Juvenile Welfare Board has the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and, in view of the Police Report, can proceed with the matter and/or whether the Board can direct the present Petitioners to appear before the Board, as directed by the impugned order and to consider the allegations in the proper perspective.

Attention of this Court has been drawn to Section 2(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which defines ''neglected juvenile''. Mr. Sen, learned Advocate, with great emphasis has drawn the attention of Court to Chap. II (Competent Authorities and Institutions For Juveniles). Section 4(1) thereof provides the constitution of the Juvenile Welfare Board indicating, inter alia, that the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute for any area specified in the notification one or more Juvenile Welfare Boards for exercising the powers and discharging the duties conferred or imposed on such Board in relation to neglected juveniles under this Act. Section 4(2) thereof provides further that a Board shall consist of a Chairman and such other members as the State Government thinks fit to appoint, of whom not less than one shall be a woman; and every such member shall be vested with the powers of a Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Similarly, Section 4(3) lays down that the Board shall function as a Bench of Magistrates and shall have the powers conferred by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, of a Metropolitan Magistrate or, as the case may be, a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class.

According to Mr. Sen, the power to function under the said Act is with regard to neglected juveniles and there is a clear definition of ''neglected juvenile''. By reading the complaint alleged by Professor P.N. Palit or the reports of the Police authorities, there will be nothing to invoke the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Welfare Board and the entire proceeding before the said Board is nothing but a fine rhetoric empty of all meaning and worth. The Petitioners, according to Mr. Sen, will suffer serious prejudice and will be unnecessarily harassed, if this Court does not interfere in the matter to quash the impugned proceedings which are not only irregular but also unwarranted in law.

Court''s attention has also been drawn to Section 5 of the Act regarding constitution of the Juvenile Welfare Board and to Section 7 relating to powers of the Board and Juvenile Court. There is reference to Section 15 also of the Act as to inquiry by Board regarding neglected juveniles.

Besides, Chapter VI relates to Special Offences in respect of Juveniles as referred therein. u/s 41 thereof, punishment for cruelty to juveniles has been specified. Mr. Sen has taken this Court to various paragraphs of the writ petition and to the complaint of Professor Palit and the report of the Police authorities as referred to above in detail and, according to him, the proceedings pending before the Juvenile Welfare Board is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and the same be quashed accordingly.

Learned Advocate-General for the Respondents State has argued to justify the proceedings pending before the Juvenile Welfare Board/Court and it is submitted that on March 20, 1991, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Detective Department, Calcutta, has filed a report that during the enquiry it could be ascertained that the script of the film ''City of Joy'' was approved by the Government of India, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, and the All India Radio, Calcutta, has nominated two liaison officers Sri S.K. Acharya and Sm. Bandana Mukherjee. It has been mentioned that as per order of the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, the completed film has to be shown to the representative of Government of India before its actual release. He has, however, emphatically drawn the Court''s attention to the second report dated April 9, 1991, from which it appears that in the script officially submitted to the State Government, there is one sequence in which a teen-aged girl, whose livelihood being prostitution, enters the room of a white person while he is in his bath-tub and he has time only to cover himself with a towel. There arc details in the report and in another sequence a girl actually aged 16, is introducing herself as 20 years old and soliciting for prostitution by falsifying her age and thereby allowing herself to be physically enjoyed. There is also another scene wherein a 13 year old girl, expected to give a lot of sex, is being molested by hoodlums in front of her parents. According to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Detective Department, Lalbazar, he has even learnt that the films are being sent to Paris for the purpose of processing.

Learned Advocate-General has strongly urged that in view of the Police Report and in view of the report of Prof. P.N. Palit the Juvenile Board has taken notice of the matter and by the impugned order, the Board has asked the present Petitioner to appear before the Board and to explain by producing the script. According to him, the scheme of the Juvenile Welfare Board under the Juvenile Justice Act does provide such investigation and the authority concerned has been conferred with the power to investigate into the matter and there is nothing for the Writ Court to intervene.

This Court has considered the submissions of the learned Counsels for both sides. According to all the parties and as submitted by them, this Court is of the view that in order to avoid any complication, this Court will not consider the merit of the case or the merit of the allegations for the purpose of disposing of the present writ petition. This Court will, however, look into the allegations as in the complaint and in the Police report, prime facie, for the purpose of deciding whether those allegations can permit the Juvenile Welfare Board/Court to assume jurisdiction to enquire into the matter. For such limited purpose and considering the case as to jurisdiction, this Court finds that Section 2(h) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, defines juvenile as:

(h) ''Juvenile'' means a boy who has not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who has not attained the age of eighteen years:''

Further, Section 2(1)(v) provides:

''neglected juvenile'' means a juvenile who

(v) is being or is likely to be abused or exploited for immoral or illegal purposes or unconscionable gain;

Section 5 of the Act indicates, inter alia, that notwithstanding anything in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute for any area specified in the notification, one or more Juvenile Courts for exercising the powers and discharging the duties conferred or imposed on such Court in relation to delinquent juveniles under this Act. Section 7 relates to powers of Board and Juvenile Court. This Court has further found by looking into Section 41 under Chap. VI (Special offences in respect of Juveniles) that, whoever having the actual charge of, or control over a juvenile, assaults, abandons, exposes or willfully neglects the juvenile or causes or procures him to be assaulted, abandoned, exposed or neglected in a manner likely to cause such juvenile unnecessary mental or physical suffering, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.

Although, it is strongly argued that in the process of shooting of film, there is a mere acting or portrayal of the characters of teen-aged girls as prostitutes. It may not be so in reality. There may not be employment of teen-aged girls to provide the characters of such prostitutes. These are no doubt the question of merit and this aspect is certainly not being considered by this Court. But, from the Police Report and/or complaints, it transpires that there is an attempt to engage teen-aged girls who are no doubt juveniles as defined u/s 2(h) being exposed and such exposition may likely to cause physical and mental injury which is required to be investigated and adjudicated by the Juvenile Welfare Board/Court as per the scheme of the Act. Looking in depth to the complaint and the Police Report ex facie for the purpose of assuming jurisdiction by the Juvenile Welfare Board/Court, this Court docs not find any irregularity or illegality in the matter. The steps taken by the Board/Court by the impugned order does not appear to be unwarranted and uncalled for. The acts done and/or caused to have been done by the Board asking the Petitioners to appear before it to explain their acts are neither erroneous nor illegal nor irregular.

For the aforesaid reasons, after considering the limited scope of jurisdiction point, this Court finds that the Juvenile Welfare Board/Court has the jurisdiction to proceed with the matter and for such reasons, the writ petition is rejected without costs. Interim order is vacated.

It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove is for the purpose of disposing of this writ petition and it may not influence the Juvenile Welfare Board/Court at all while considering the enquiry report, complaint or deciding the matter in accordance with law.

There will be stay of operation of this order on condition that there will be no shooting of the film of the portions mentioned in the Police Report dated April 9, 1991, without the leave of the Court.