- (1.)This Court on 27th Oct., 2014, had passed the following order:
"Mr. Rohatgi, learned Attorney General, apart from submitting that the finding recorded on that score is absolutely unsustainable, also submitted that the entire scheme of juvenility is engaging the attention of the Central Government. While dealing with the issue, two suggestions were given to the learned Attorney General, namely, whether there is any kind of consideration as regards the reduction of age, and whether the juvenility will depend upon the nature of offence committed. To elaborate, whether the attention of the Government will be drawn to the prevailing atmosphere that most of the juveniles are engaged in horrendous and heinous crimes like rape, murder and drug-peddling, etc."

(2.)It is submitted by Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Attorney General appearing for Union of India, along with Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Additional Solicitor General that the concern expressed by this Court is still engaging the attention of the competent authority of the State. It is further submitted by Mr. Rohatgi that he realizes the concern of the 'Nation' at the rate the heinous crimes are committed by the juveniles, who are called juvenile under the present Act, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. Elaborating the concern, the learned Attorney General would state that in the instant case the respondent, who claims to be a juvenile, has been alleged accused of offence wherein a gathering in a village was attacked by lethal weapons by other accused persons along with the respondent which has resulted in the death of nine persons and injuries have been suffered by several other persons.
(3.)Mr. Rohatgi and Mr. Mehta would submit that the High Court has found him to be a juvenile as he was seventeen years and six months on the date of alleged occurrence, though they seriously would contend that it is factually incorrect. That is the controversy to be gone into.