The Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling, has set aside orders from a Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) and a Children’s Court that directed a 17-year-old to be tried as an adult for heinous offences, including murder. Citing the “arbitrary manner” in which preliminary assessments of juveniles are being conducted, Justice Siddharth has formulated a comprehensive set of 11 mandatory guidelines for all JJBs and Children’s Courts in Uttar Pradesh to follow until the legislature formulates its own.
The Court allowed a criminal revision petition challenging the orders of the Juvenile Justice Board, Prayagraj, dated 04.12.2020, and the Additional and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Prayagraj, dated 30.11.2023.
Case Background
The case originates from Case Crime No. 0463 of 2019, registered at Police Station George Town, District Prayagraj, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 302, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The Juvenile Justice Board determined the age of the revisionist to be 17 years, 6 months, and 27 days at the time of the alleged incident.
Following this, the Board conducted a preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. After asking the juvenile seven questions and considering a report from the District Probation Officer (D.P.O.), the Board concluded that he was “capable of understanding the consequences of the act of murder and other offences” and had sufficient maturity. The Board also noted his alleged implication in two prior offences and ordered that he be tried as an adult. This decision was subsequently upheld on appeal by the Children’s Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri Abhishit Jaiswal, argued that his client was not named in the First Information Report (FIR) and had been falsely implicated. He contended that the preliminary assessment was not conducted in accordance with the mandate of Section 15(1) of the JJ Act, 2015, and that the assistance of a psychologist was merely a formality.
Conversely, the learned Additional Government Advocate (A.G.A.) for the State submitted that both the Juvenile Justice Board and the appellate court had correctly conducted the preliminary assessment as per the provisions of the Act.
Court’s Analysis and Reasoning
Justice Siddharth, after hearing the arguments, found the existing legal framework lacking in procedural clarity. The Court observed, “The provisions of Section 15(1) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 are absolutely vague… the process of determination has not been provided anywhere.”
The Court heavily relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Barun Chandra Thakur Vs. Master Bholu (2022), which emphasized that a preliminary assessment is a “delicate task” that cannot be “relegated to the status of a perfunctory and a routine task.” The judgment highlighted the need for a “meticulous psychological evaluation” to assess a child’s mental capacity, cognitive abilities, and emotional competence.
The High Court quoted the Apex Court’s view on child psychology: “Children may be geared towards more instant gratification and may not be able to deeply understand the long-term consequences of their actions. They are also more likely to be influenced by emotion rather than reason.”
Applying this precedent, the Court scrutinized the psychologist’s report in the present case, which merely stated: “He seems to be immature kind did not know consequences of his act.” Justice Siddharth found this report to be wholly inadequate, observing that it “does not records any finding as to the revisionist was subjected to what kind of test; what was his Emotional Intelligence Quotient (EQ) or his Intelligence Quotient (I.Q.).” The Court concluded that the report appeared to be a mere “formal compliance.”
Expressing concern over the lack of a standardized framework, the Court noted that despite the Supreme Court’s direction, no specific guidelines have been issued to assist the Boards. “As of now, it is being done in arbitrary manner in absence of any definite parameters/guidelines for the same,” the order stated.
Decision and New Guidelines
Finding the orders of the lower courts unsustainable in law, the High Court quashed them and allowed the criminal revision. The matter was remanded to the Juvenile Justice Board for a fresh preliminary assessment.
To address the procedural vacuum, the Court formulated the following guidelines to be followed by all Juvenile Justice Boards and Children’s Courts in the State:
- The Board will necessarily call for a psychologist’s report regarding intelligence tests conducted on the child to assess their ability to understand consequences (e.g., Binet Kamat Test of Intelligence, Vineland Social Maturity Scale, Bhatiya Battery Test). The report must specify the test performed and clearly indicate the child’s EQ and IQ.
- Clear findings shall be recorded regarding the child’s physical and mental capability to commit the heinous crime and their ability to understand its consequences.
- The Board shall direct the Probation Officer or Child Welfare Officer to submit a social investigation report within fifteen days.
- The Child Welfare Police Officer shall submit a social investigation report on the child’s antecedents and family background within two weeks.
- In heinous offence cases, the Child Welfare Police Officer shall produce witness statements and other documents from the investigation within one month.
- The number and nature of any previous implications of the child must be detailed.
- Details of prior periods of probation or commitments to correctional centres must be considered.
- The Board must examine if the alleged offence is part of a repetitive pattern of similar adjudicated offences.
- Any history of the child absconding from legal custody must be noted.
- The degree of intellectual disability or mental illness of the child, if any, must be assessed.
- The child’s school record and education history must be considered.
The Court has directed the Registrar (Compliance) to communicate the order to all JJBs and Children’s Courts in Uttar Pradesh for necessary compliance.
