Summary
The Supreme Court rejected a renewed juvenility claim that had already been considered and rejected through the Supreme Court review stage. Although juvenility may be raised even after final disposal, that facility did not permit this petitioner to reopen an adjudicated claim through a fresh Section 7A application. The Court heard counsel fully on the merits and found no basis for interference. Counsel’s separate objection to observations against him was left for independent proceedings.
Issues
- Whether Section 7A permitted re-agitation of the petitioner’s juvenility claim after its rejection by the Magistrate, High Court and Supreme Court.
Held
- A juvenility claim may be raised at any stage, including for the first time after final disposal. Once the same claim has been raised and rejected through the stated judicial stages, however, a fresh application cannot be used to re-agitate it. (¶¶ 6, 7, 11)
- The Magistrate had considered the age-verification material and recorded the absence of dispute about majority; that order was not challenged. The High Court and Supreme Court had subsequently rejected the plea, with the Supreme Court order attaining finality. These prior determinations justified rejection of the renewed application. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10, 11)
- The Court heard counsel at length on the merits in light of his complaint about the High Court hearing. It expressed no opinion on the separate remarks concerning counsel, preserving his liberty to pursue appropriate proceedings. (¶¶ 5, 12)
Result
SLP dismissed. Counsel granted liberty to pursue separate appropriate proceedings concerning the High Court’s observations against him, without any opinion on that issue.