The Supreme Court of India has ruled that a Children’s Court must mandatorily decide whether a juvenile accused of a heinous crime should be tried as an adult or a child under Section 19(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, before proceeding with the trial. A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale held that the absence of such a reasoned order goes to the root of the court’s jurisdiction and vitiates the entire trial. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction and 14-year rigorous imprisonment sentence of an appellant who was 16 and a half years old at the time of the alleged murder, ordering his immediate acquittal after he spent over six years in prison.
Background of the Case
According to the prosecution, on October 21, 2018, police received information from the Civil Lines Police Station, Kaithal, regarding the death of Mandeep Kumar, who succumbed to injuries sustained in a quarrel. The complainant, Mandeep Kumar (PW11), stated that he, along with Aman (PW12) and the deceased, were returning from the Baba-Rajpuri fair on a motorcycle when they were intercepted by seven masked persons on two motorcycles. The appellant, identified as “S” (who was 16 and a half years old at the time of the incident), allegedly struck the deceased on the left temporal region with an iron pipe, while others attacked him with knives and a rod. The deceased later died at Cygnus Hospital.
Following an investigation, the police filed a chargesheet under Sections 148, 323, 341, and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Because the appellant was a minor, he was produced before the Juvenile Justice Board (JJ Board), Kaithal. The JJ Board conducted a preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Act and, on January 24, 2019, opined that the appellant had the physical and mental capacity to commit the offense and understand its consequences. It then transferred the case to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal (acting as the Children’s Court) under Section 18(3) to try the appellant as an adult.
However, upon receiving the case, the Children’s Court did not pass any independent order under Section 19(1) of the Act. Instead, it proceeded directly with a Sessions trial, convicting the appellant of murder on March 13/14, 2019, and sentencing him to 14 years of rigorous imprisonment. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana subsequently dismissed the appellant’s appeal, affirming his conviction.
Arguments of the Parties
Before the Supreme Court, the counsel representing the appellant argued that once the case was committed to the Children’s Court, that court was statutorily bound to pass an order under Section 19(1) of the Act. The counsel emphasized that there was absolutely no record showing a judicial application of mind by the Children’s Court to evaluate whether there was a genuine need to try the juvenile as an adult.
In response, the state, representing the respondent, contended that the preliminary assessment conducted by the JJ Board under Section 15 was sufficient to sustain the trial, thereby validating the subsequent conviction and sentence.
The Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court evaluated the core legal question of whether a conviction can be sustained in the absence of a formal determination under Section 19(1) of the Act. The bench observed that the Act mandates a highly calibrated, sequential procedure for handling children aged between 16 and 18 accused of heinous offenses.
Analyzing the statutory framework, the Court noted that taking cognizance is merely the initial step for the Children’s Court. Under Section 19(1), the court must specifically decide whether the child needs to be tried as an adult under the Code of Criminal Procedure, or whether it should conduct an inquiry acting as a Board and pass reformative orders under Section 18.
The Court held that although Section 19(1) uses the word “may” (“the Children’s Court may decide…”), the term must be read as “shall” because the legal consequences of trying a child as an adult versus as a juvenile are fundamentally different. To support this rule of statutory interpretation, the bench cited Sarla Goel and Others v. Kishan Chand, quoting:
“The question as to whether a statute is mandatory or directory depends upon the intent of the legislature and not upon the language in which the intent is clothed. The meaning and intention of the legislature must govern, and these are to be ascertained, not only from the phraseology of the provision, but also by considering its nature, its design, and the consequences which would follow from construing it the one way or the other”
The bench explained that under Rule 13 of the Juvenile Justice Model Rules, 2016, the Children’s Court is mandated to record reasons for its decision. If tried as an adult, a minor faces a full-scale Sessions trial with severe prison sentences (subject to the exclusions of death penalty and life imprisonment without release under Section 21) and retains a post-conviction disqualification. Conversely, if tried as a child, the procedure follows a summons case inquiry, and the maximum reformative punishment is three years in a Special Home, without carrying any post-conviction disqualification.
The Court cited Ajeet Gurjar v. State of Madhya Pradesh to reiterate that holding an inquiry under Section 19(1) is not an empty formality. It also pointed to Barun Chandra Thakur v. Master Bholu, which emphasized that the consequences of being tried as an adult have a lasting, serious effect on the entire life of the child. Applying the precedent set in Thirumoorthy v. State, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that conducting a trial in gross violation of these mandatory provisions completely vitiates the entire proceedings.
The Decision
The Supreme Court concluded that without a formal, reasoned determination under Section 19(1) of the Act, the trial conducted by the Children’s Court was impermissible and wholly vitiated.
While the Court acknowledged that in some previous cases matters were remitted back for compliance, it noted that the appellant is now 24 years old and has already spent over six years in prison. Relying on Thirumoorthy, the Court held that it is no longer feasible or realistic to carry out a retrospective assessment of the appellant’s mental and physical capacity at the time of the offense in 2018.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of both the Children’s Court and the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, and acquitted the appellant.
Before parting, the Supreme Court issued a country-wide mandate to all Children’s Courts:
“…upon receipt of records pursuant to transfer/committal under Section 18(3) of the Act by the Juvenile Justice Board, the first duty of the Children’s Court, after taking cognizance of the matter, is to pass a reasoned order under Section 19(1) of the Act upon due assessment of the ‘child in conflict with law’ before it proceeds further in the matter.”
Case Details:
Case Title: S v. The State of Haryana
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8113/2024)
Bench: Justice Aravind Kumar, Justice Prasanna B. Varale
Date: July 13, 2026
