A bench comprising justices K S Radhakrishnan and Dipak Misra decided to hear the matter from April 3, and asked the Attorney General to file counter affidavits and relevant reports relating to the issue.
The petition, filed by two advocates—Kamal Kumar Pandey and Sukumar—contended that sections 2(k), 10 and 17 of the JJ Act which deals with the issue were irrational and ultra-vires of the Constitution.
The counsel, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the constitutional validity of the definition of juvenile in the Act is in conflict with the law.
