Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 – Landmark Cases

Section 3
Section 4
Section 27
Section 41
Section 54
Section 107

The State must properly implement the Juvenile Justice Act and ensure that child protection institutions function effectively. Children must receive proper care, protection, rehabilitation and access to justice.

This public interest case concerned the failure of several States to properly implement juvenile justice laws. The petitioner asked the Supreme Court to ensure that authorities fulfilled their legal duties towards children. The Court examined problems such as the absence of functioning Juvenile Justice Boards, Child Welfare Committees, special juvenile police units and suitable child care institutions. It stressed that establishing these bodies on paper is not enough; they must function effectively. The Court issued directions to improve implementation of the law and strengthen child protection systems. It also highlighted the need for trained officials, suitable facilities and regular monitoring. The judgment is a leading authority on the responsibility of the State to protect children and implement the Juvenile Justice Act.

Section 9
Section 94

A claim that a person was a child on the date of the alleged offence can be raised at different stages of a criminal case. Age determination must follow the evidence and procedure prescribed by the Act. Medical age tests should generally be used only when the required documents are unavailable.

The case concerned a claim that the accused was below eighteen years of age when the alleged offence took place. The Supreme Court examined the procedure for determining age under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. It explained that a claim of juvenility may be raised before a court at different stages, including after the case has concluded. Section 9 deals with the procedure when such a claim is raised before a court other than the Juvenile Justice Board. Section 94 provides the method for determining age when a person is brought before the Board or Child Welfare Committee. The Court explained the order in which school records, birth certificates and medical tests should be considered. It stressed that age must be determined carefully on the available evidence and the circumstances of each case.

Section 94

The statutory method for determining a child's age must be followed. Courts must carefully examine the reliability of documents and should not accept an age claim merely because a particular document has been produced.

The case concerned a dispute over the age of a person claiming the benefit of juvenile justice law. Different records were relied upon to establish the person's date of birth. The Supreme Court examined Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 and the evidence available for determining age. It explained that the 2015 Act contains its own procedure for age determination. The authority must consider the prescribed documents and assess whether the records are reliable. The Court considered the relevance of school records and other documents in deciding the age question. The decision is important because age determines whether a person can receive the protections available under juvenile justice law.

Section 2(33)
Section 15
Section 18

An offence cannot be classified as a heinous offence under the Act merely because its maximum punishment is seven years or more. The statutory definition requires a minimum punishment of at least seven years.

The case arose after a child between sixteen and eighteen years of age was accused of an offence under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. The Juvenile Justice Board treated the offence as heinous and considered whether the child should be tried as an adult. The issue was whether an offence with no minimum sentence of seven years could be classified as a heinous offence. The Supreme Court held that such an offence could not be treated as heinous under Section 2(33). The Court explained that the word "minimum" in the statutory definition must be given its proper meaning. It also recognised a gap in the Act concerning offences that did not fit neatly into the existing categories. The judgment is important because the classification of an offence determines whether the preliminary assessment procedure under Section 15 can apply.

Section 3
Section 15
Section 18(3)

A preliminary assessment is not a trial. It must carefully examine the child's mental and physical capacity, ability to understand the consequences of the alleged offence and the circumstances in which it occurred. Expert assistance may be necessary.

The case concerned a child accused of a serious criminal offence, and the Juvenile Justice Board had to decide whether the child should be tried as an adult. The Board conducted a preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Act. The matter reached the Supreme Court because of concerns about the assessment and the expert assistance used. The Court explained that a preliminary assessment is different from deciding whether the child committed the offence. It must examine the child's capacity and understanding, as well as the circumstances of the alleged act. The Court stressed that the assessment is a serious task and must not be treated as a routine formality. The Board should seek assistance from experienced psychologists or other suitable experts when necessary. The judgment provides important guidance on the safeguards required before a child can be transferred for trial as an adult.

Section 14(3)
Section 15
Section 19
Section 101

The three-month period for completing a preliminary assessment under Section 14(3) is directory, rather than an absolute deadline that automatically ends the proceedings. An appeal against an order under Section 15 may be entertained after thirty days if sufficient cause for the delay is shown.

The case concerned a child accused of sexual offences who was assessed by the Juvenile Justice Board for trial as an adult. The Board decided that the child should be tried by the Children's Court, and the decision was challenged. The Supreme Court considered the time limit for completing a preliminary assessment and the rules governing appeals. It held that the three-month period in Section 14(3) is directory because the Act does not specify that proceedings must end if the period is exceeded. The Court also explained that an appeal against an order under Section 15 may be filed within thirty days under Section 101(2). A delayed appeal may still be considered if sufficient cause for the delay is shown. The judgment clarifies procedural time limits and the right to challenge a decision to try a child as an adult.

Section 3
Section 41
Section 50
Section 53

The safety, health and welfare of children in care institutions must be protected, including during a public health emergency. Authorities must take practical steps to reduce risks to children living in institutions.

The Supreme Court took up the matter on its own during the COVID-19 pandemic because children in protection homes faced a risk of infection. The case covered children in need of care and protection as well as children in conflict with law living in different types of institutions. The Court recognised that children in such settings could be especially vulnerable during an outbreak. It directed States and Union Territories to take urgent steps to prevent the spread of infection in child care institutions. The directions included reviewing the number of children kept in institutions and considering the release of eligible children in conflict with law on interim bail or parole, as appropriate. The Court also stressed the need for health precautions and coordination among authorities. The proceedings demonstrate that the State's duty to protect children continues during emergencies.

Section 9
Section 94

The age of a person must be determined according to the statutory procedure and reliable evidence. A child should receive the protections of the Act if the evidence establishes that the person was below eighteen years of age on the date of the alleged offence.

Age determination is one of the most important issues in juvenile justice proceedings because it decides whether a person is entitled to the protections given to children. In Rishipal Singh Solanki, the Supreme Court explained the difference between a claim of juvenility raised before a court and the age inquiry conducted by the Juvenile Justice Board or Child Welfare Committee. The Court clarified that Section 9 governs claims raised before courts other than the Board. Section 94 provides the procedure for age determination by the Board or Committee. The prescribed documents must be considered in the order set out in the Act. Medical tests are not the first choice when reliable statutory documents are available. The decision gives courts and authorities guidance on resolving disputes about age fairly and consistently.