Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra participated in the Supreme Court proceedings in Ms. Eera through Dr. Manjula Krippendorf v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr., reported in (2017) 15 SCC 133, as an advocate assisting the Amicus Curiae, Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Senior Advocate.
Role as Part of the Amicus Curiae Team
The Supreme Court’s record of proceedings dated 21 July 2016 specifically records Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Senior Advocate, as Amicus Curiae, with Mr. Anil Kr. Mishra-I, Advocate appearing with him. The record therefore establishes Mr. Mishra’s participation as part of the legal team assisting the Court through the Amicus Curiae.
This was a significant role because the Court had sought assistance on an important question concerning the interpretation of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and the rights of persons with intellectual disabilities.
Nature of the Matter
The proceedings arose from a case involving Eera, a woman with intellectual disability, represented through Dr. Manjula Krippendorf. The matter raised an important question concerning the meaning of the expression “child” under the POCSO Act.
The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the statutory definition of a child under the POCSO Act could be interpreted on the basis of a person’s mental age, rather than their biological or chronological age. The question was particularly significant in the context of persons with intellectual disabilities.
Assistance to the Court
As part of the legal team assisting the Amicus Curiae, Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra participated in proceedings concerning this important question of statutory interpretation. The Amicus Curiae was requested to assist the Court in examining the legal position and the interpretation of the statutory provisions involved.
The record specifically identifies Mr. Mishra as an advocate appearing with the Amicus Curiae. However, the reported judgment does not separately attribute particular submissions or arguments to Mr. Mishra by name. Accordingly, no individual argument is attributed to him beyond his verified participation in assisting the Amicus Curiae.
Decision of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court examined whether the expression “child” under the POCSO Act could be interpreted to include a person above eighteen years of age on the basis of mental age. The Court declined to expand the statutory definition in that manner and held that the definition was based on age, as prescribed by the legislation.
The Court also considered the broader issues concerning statutory interpretation and the protection of persons with intellectual disabilities within the existing legal framework.
Verified Role
Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra’s role in the matter is therefore accurately described as Advocate assisting the Amicus Curiae, Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, before the Supreme Court of India.
His participation in this matter reflects his involvement in a significant Supreme Court proceeding concerning POCSO law, statutory interpretation and the rights of persons with intellectual disabilities. The Court record confirms his appearance with the Amicus Curiae, while the judgment does not separately attribute any particular submission to him individually.