The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a Court before which a claim of juvenility is raised under Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, has a mandatory, non-delegable duty to conduct an inquiry and record a finding regarding age. The Court held that mechanically referring the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board without such adjudication is “prima facie without jurisdiction.”
Justice Tej Pratap Tiwari allowed an application filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), setting aside an order where the trial court had referred a juvenility claim to the Board instead of deciding it itself. The Court also directed the Registrar General to issue a circular to all District and Sessions Judges across Uttar Pradesh to ensure strict compliance with Section 9(2) of the Act.
Background of the Case
The applicant, Maksudan Gond @ Kahsudan Gond, is an accused in Session Trial No. 219/2019 arising out of Case Crime No. 135/2019 under Sections 498A, 304B of the IPC and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, at Police Station Khampar, District Deoria.
The applicant had moved an application claiming juvenility before the Additional District & Sessions Judge (F.T.C-I), Deoria. By an order dated March 3, 2020, the Sessions Judge referred the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board, Deoria. Subsequently, the Juvenile Justice Board passed a consequential order on May 30, 2022.
The applicant challenged both the order of the Sessions Court and the consequential order of the Board before the High Court, arguing that the Sessions Court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law.
Arguments of the Parties
Sri Avijit Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant, contended that the impugned order was illegal and passed without jurisdiction. He argued that Section 9(2) of the JJ Act mandates that where a claim of juvenility is raised before a Court other than the Board, the Court “shall make an enquiry, take such evidence as may necessary.. and shall record the finding in the matter, stating the age of the person as nearly as may be”.
The counsel submitted that this duty is “mandatory, adjudicatory and non delegable.” Reliance was placed on a Division Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Pawan Kumar (Corpus) and Another Vs. State of U.P. (Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 497 of 2025) and the Supreme Court decision in Rishipal Singh Solanki Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. (2022) 8 SCC 602.
The learned A.G.A. for the State vehemently opposed the application, contending that the impugned order was lawful and the application was liable to be dismissed.
Court’s Analysis
Justice Tiwari examined the provisions of Section 9(2) of the Act and observed that it imposes a mandatory duty on the Court to conduct an inquiry, take evidence, and record a positive finding on juvenility.
The Court observed:
“Referring such an issue, to the Juvenile Justice Board, looks to be prima facie without jurisdiction as the question of juvenility has not been decided, but has only been referred to the Juvenile Justice Board.”
The Court referred to previous judgments, including Ravindra Alias Loola versus State of U.P. and Satyaveer versus State of U.P., which discussed Supreme Court rulings in Karan @ Fatiya Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ashok vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh. The Court noted that even the Supreme Court, when faced with a plea of juvenility raised for the first time, has directed Courts of Sessions to examine the claim and submit a report, reinforcing that the Court before which the plea is raised must decide it.
The High Court held that the order dated March 3, 2020, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, suffered from “patent illegality” and was not sustainable in the eyes of law.
Decision and Directions
The High Court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order dated March 3, 2020, passed by the Additional District & Sessions (F.T.C-I), Deoria, as well as the consequential order dated May 30, 2022, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board.
The matter was remitted back to the Additional District and Sessions Judge (F.T.C.-I), Deoria, with a direction to provide a fresh opportunity of hearing to the parties and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
Furthermore, observing that the mandate of Section 9(2) of the JJ Act is not being followed across the State, the Court issued a significant administrative direction:
“Taking note of the fact, that mandate of Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, is not being followed across the State, therefore, it seems expedient in the interest of justice to ask the learned Registrar General of this Court, to place the matter before the appropriate body, and after getting necessary approval, may issue a circular to all the learned District & Sessions Judges across the State of U.P directing all concerned to act in compliance of the provisions of law…”
Case Details:
- Case Title: Maksudan Gond @ Kahsudan Gond Vs. State of U.P.
- Case Number: Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 49660 of 2025
- Coram: Justice Tej Pratap Tiwari
- Counsel for Applicant: Avijit Saxena
- Counsel for Opposite Party: G.A.
