The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 | Criminal Law for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

Introduction

• The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015, known as the JJ Act, 2015, was enacted to address concerns raised after the Nirbhaya case.
• It aims to provide a legal framework for dealing with juvenile offenders in a more stringent manner.
• The Act allows for the transfer of juveniles aged 16-18 years, accused of serious crimes, to be tried as adults in a children's court.

Provisions of Section 15 of the JJ Act, 2015

• Section 15 of the JJ Act, 2015, is a key provision that deals with the transfer of cases involving juveniles aged 16-18 years to a children's court.
• The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) is tasked with assessing the mental capacity of the accused through the help of experts like psycho-social workers and psychologists.
• If the JJB determines that the juvenile should be tried as an adult based on the preliminary assessment, the case may be transferred to a children's court.

Criteria for Transfer to Adult Courts

• The Act justifies transferring juveniles above 16 years to adult courts if the JJB believes that the juvenile exhibited adult-like maturity when committing the offense.
• The JJB evaluates the juvenile's mental and physical capacity to understand the offense, its consequences, and the circumstances surrounding it to make this determination.

Role of the Children's Court

• Upon transfer of the case, the children's court conducts a trial and makes decisions based on the best interests of the child and principles of justice.
• The children's court is restricted from imposing the death penalty or life imprisonment on juvenile offenders.

System of Judicial Waiver in Juvenile Justice

• Due to rising juvenile crimes and perceived lack of faith in rehabilitation, juveniles are sometimes treated as 'predators' instead of individuals in need of help.
• Inspired by the 'Get-Tough' approach in the US, many states try juveniles as adults, with some exceptions like Vermont, Indiana, and South Dakota.
• Three legal mechanisms in the US allow juveniles to be tried as adults:
  1. Automatic transfer laws mandate transfer based on specific criteria such as age and offense.
  2. Judicial discretionary transfer laws empower judges to decide on transfers after finding probable cause.
  3. Prosecutorial discretionary transfer laws give prosecutors the authority to choose between juvenile and adult court.

Procedure Outlined - Section 15

Nature of the Offense

• To apply Section 15, a juvenile must commit a heinous offense, defined as crimes with a minimum punishment of seven years' imprisonment.
• These offenses differ from petty or serious offenses and require a trial procedure similar to summons cases under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Juvenile Justice Board (JJB)

• The JJB, a multidisciplinary body, handles children in conflict with the law.
• Comprising a principal magistrate with experience and two social workers, including at least one woman, the social workers must have significant experience in child-related fields or relevant degrees.

Eligibility Criteria for JJB Members

• Individuals ineligible if they have a history of violating human or child rights, moral turpitude, or government service dismissal.

Training for JJB Members

• JJB members need to be sensitized on child care, protection, legal aspects, and rehabilitation.
• While the law mandates only one-time training (as per clause 5), regular training is highly recommended.
• Experienced psychologists, psycho-social workers, or relevant experts can assist the board as per the proviso to sub-section (1).
• A panel of experts can be provided by the district child protection unit upon request or independently accessed.

Preliminary Assessment by JJB

• When a 'child in conflict with law' is brought before the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), an inquiry is conducted based on the offense severity.
• For petty offenses, an inquiry follows Chapter XXI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, while serious/heinous offenses follow Chapter XX of CrPC.
• If a child above 16 years commits a heinous offense, a preliminary assessment under Section 15 is required.
• The board must conclude the preliminary assessment within three months from the child's first appearance.
• Psychologists, social workers, or experts may assist in the assessment, presuming innocence until proven otherwise.
• If the child is deemed fit for trial as an adult, the Board issues an order and provides reasons for the decision.

Social Investigation Report

• A comprehensive report about a child that includes detailed information regarding the child's circumstances, social and economic situation, psycho-social factors, and other relevant details. 
• This report is usually prepared by a Probation Officer or a non-governmental organization. It also includes recommendations based on the gathered information.

Social Background Report

• This report focuses on a child in conflict with the law and is prepared by the Child Welfare Police Officer. It contains background information about the child, often obtained by contacting the child's parents or guardians. 
• This report is crucial in determining the child's welfare during legal proceedings.

Physical and Mental Drug Assessment Report

• Assessment report that evaluates the physical and mental condition of the child, including any potential drug-related issues.

Preliminary Assessment Report

• A report detailing the circumstances of the child's apprehension and the alleged offense. 
• It also includes a psychological evaluation conducted by a psychologist. 
• This report helps in determining whether the child should be tried as an adult by a Children's Court.

Statement of Witnesses and Documents

• Documents and witness statements generated during the investigation by the Child Welfare Police Officer within one month of the child's initial appearance before the board.

Clear all your Judiciary Exams doubts with EduRev Join for Free

Join for Free

Purpose of Preliminary Assessment Test

• The preliminary assessment test aims to evaluate the child's mental and physical capacity to commit a serious offense, their ability to understand the consequences of their actions, and the circumstances surrounding the alleged offense. 
• This assessment is crucial in determining whether the child should be tried as an adult by the Children's Court.

Composition of the Board

• The Board responsible for assessing the child must include a Magistrate with at least three years of experience and two social workers. 
• The procedure for preliminary assessment of heinous offenses by the Board is outlined in Rule 10A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016.

Presumption of Innocence

• During assessment, a child is considered innocent until proven guilty.
• As per the Central Rules, if the board decides a child should be tried as an adult, it must provide reasons for this decision.

General Principles under JJ Act 2015

• A child is presumed innocent and free of malicious or criminal intent.
• No waiver of the child's rights is allowed or valid.
• Basic procedural safeguards like the right to a fair hearing and impartial judgment must be ensured.

Preliminary Assessment

• It is a necessary step for the board when a child is presented before it.
• The board must follow the procedure outlined in Section 15 along with Rule 10A of the Central Rules.
• The board must independently decide based on expert opinions and cannot delegate this judicial function to another authority.

Implications of Section 15 Order

• An order under Section 15 treats a juvenile aged 16 to 18 as an adult in legal terms.
• It removes the protective provisions of Section 18(1)/(2) and determines trial forum, procedure, and potential punishment.
• Strict interpretation is required due to its legal fictional nature.

Transfer to Children's Court

• Upon a Section 18(3) order, the case moves to the Children's Court.
• If the Children's Court is designated under specific acts, it follows trial procedures outlined in the law.
• The Children's Court can make sentencing decisions different from the Board and may not offer certain protections.

Decision Making Process in Juvenile Justice System

• When the Board makes a decision under Section 15 of the Act, it must provide reasoning to show thoughtful consideration. Without proper reasoning, the conclusion becomes invalid.
• The decision under Section 15 must establish the child's mental and/or physical capacity to commit a serious offense, their understanding of the offense's consequences, and the circumstances surrounding the offense.

Children's Court Proceedings

• Following an inquiry under Section 15, a child labeled 'in conflict with the law' is referred to the Children's Court. The Children's Court, as per Section 18(3), must decide whether the child should be tried by the Children's Court again.
• If the Children's Court deems that the child should be tried as an adult under normal criminal procedure, it proceeds according to Section 19(1)(i). Otherwise, it conducts an inquiry under Section 14(5)(e).
• For trials of children aged 16 to 18 accused of serious offenses, the Children's Court must conduct an additional inquiry, as outlined in Rule 13 of the Central Rules.

Constitutional Concerns

• Violation of the Right to Equality: Section 15 of the Act raises concerns about equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. It treats children aged 16-18 differently from younger children without a justifiable basis.
• Juvenile Justice Board's Authority: The Act grants significant power to the Juvenile Justice Board to decide whether a case should be handled by them or transferred to the Children's Court based on a preliminary assessment.

Previous Concerns Raised

• A Standing Committee highlighted concerns before the passing of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Bill, 2014. It noted that stakeholders believed the proposed changes contradicted Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.
• The existing juvenile system was considered not only reformative and rehabilitative but also in alignment with constitutional provisions.

Introduction

• The age group of 16-18 years is considered highly sensitive and crucial, warranting increased protection.
• Initially, it seems unnecessary to subject this age group to the adult judicial system, as it would violate Articles 14 and 15(3) of the Constitution.
• The Justice Verma Committee, tasked with reviewing potential amendments to laws on sexual violence against women, concluded that maintaining the current age cutoff of 18 years is essential. They emphasized that the juvenile age should not be lowered to 16 years.

Analysis of the Act

Lack of Reasonable Classification:

• The Act fails to provide a justifiable basis for treating juveniles and individuals above 16 differently.
• Article 14 emphasizes equality before the law and equal protection of laws. The principle of equal protection should prevail over the doctrine of classification.
• Any classification must have an intelligible differentia and a rational connection to the intended objective. Section 15 of the Act lacks a reasonable basis for the differentiation within the 16-18 age group.

Key Points

Legal Classification Requirements:

• Classifications must be based on intelligible differentia and should be rationally linked to the intended goal.
• Article 14 prohibits arbitrary classifications but allows for reasonable distinctions that serve a valid purpose.

Unreasonable Classification in Section 15:

• Section 15 of the Act introduces an unjustifiable division within the age group, lacking a clear differentia.
• This classification undermines the Act's core purpose of providing care and protection to children in conflict with the law or in need of assistance.

Violation of Right to Equality

• In the case of Subramanian Swamy v. Raju, the Supreme Court clarified that classification under Article 14 does not require strict mathematical precision in similarities among individuals within a group. As long as the key characteristics of a category are clear and the classification is reasonably related to the targeted objective, it is permissible.
• The Supreme Court's decision in State of W.B. v. Anwar Ali Sarkar highlighted the unconstitutionality of Section 5(1) of the WB Special Courts Act, 1950, as it granted arbitrary powers to the executive and legislature to determine which cases go to special courts without any inherent classification in the law itself.
• Under Article 14, it is recognized that precision and strict arithmetical accuracy are not prerequisites for classification. The distinct classification of juveniles aged 16-18 does not align with the intended objective and may lead to arbitrary actions.

Test: The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015

Start Test

Start Test

Arbitrary Power of Juvenile Justice Board

The method by which the Juvenile Justice Board classifies individuals aged 16-18 is deemed arbitrary. This arbitrariness is evident in the following aspects:

Absence of Mandatory Psychologist Presence

• Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act allows the Board to decide whether to engage psychologists or experts during the preliminary assessment for heinous crimes. 
• This discretionary power can lead to inconsistent evaluations as laypersons may lack the expertise to evaluate a juvenile's mental state effectively.

The Lack of Qualified Persons in the Juvenile Board

• The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 outlines the composition of the Juvenile Board, requiring a Principal Magistrate with experience and two social workers, with at least one being a woman.
• Social workers on the Board must have significant experience in child-related fields or possess specific professional degrees.
• It is crucial to have a professional with expertise in child psychology or psychiatry on the Board to assess a juvenile's mental capacity during the commission of a crime accurately.
• Without a mandatory requirement for a psychologist or psychiatrist, the credibility of the Board's assessments may be compromised, potentially violating Article 14.

The Lack of Reasonable Time for Preliminary Assessment

• The Act mandates that for serious offenses, the Board must complete the preliminary assessment within three months of the child's first appearance.
• This short three-month period for assessment raises concerns as it determines whether a child should be tried as an adult, solely based on initial information without the child's input.
• The limited timeframe deprives juveniles of fundamental legal protections granted to accused individuals, as they might be transferred to the adult criminal justice system before a complete investigation.

Assessment of Heinous Offences

• Current assessment procedures lack fairness and justice due to arbitrary nature.
• Both actus reus (conduct) and mens rea (mental element) must be established for criminal conviction.
• Mens rea involves intent to commit an act society deems criminal.
• Principle: "An act does not make a person guilty unless his intention be guilty also."

Doli Incapax and Juvenile Offenders

• Children under seven years old are not held criminally liable under the Indian Penal Code.
• Section 83 of the Code provides exemption for children aged 7 to 12 who lack understanding of their actions' nature and consequences.
• Principle of doli incapax: Children under seven are completely exempt from liability.
• Children aged 7 to 12 are granted limited exemption due to insufficient maturity and understanding.
• Assessment of each case is necessary to determine absence of requisite intent due to age.

Key Legal Principles in Juvenile Criminal Cases

Hiralal Mallick vs. the State of Bihar

• In a significant case, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a 12-year-old boy initially charged with murder, which was later reduced to causing grievous hurt. The court emphasized the importance of Section 83 in establishing a juvenile's immaturity.

Kakoo vs. the State of Himachal Pradesh

• A 13-year-old boy was convicted of raping a two-year-old girl. Although convicted, the court considered Sections 83 and 84 of the Indian Penal Code, highlighting the distinction between children and adults in criminal cases.

Principles of Criminal Responsibility

• When juveniles face criminal charges, the focus is on proving or disproving mens rea, with negligence often serving as the baseline standard.
• The juvenile justice system prioritizes the best interests of the child, aiming for rehabilitation over punitive measures.
• It is crucial to avoid unjust prosecution of children, as it can have long-lasting repercussions on their lives and perpetuate delinquent behavior.

Juvenile Justice System in India

• Offending behaviors in youth often cease over time.
• Definition of criminal culpability significantly influences outcomes.
• The Indian Penal Code safeguards infants from criminal responsibility based on lack of mens rea.
• The Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 conflicts with constitutional principles regarding defense for juveniles

Case Summaries

Case: Appeal of a Juvenile

• The appellant child's rights were violated due to lack of legal assistance and an opportunity for a fair hearing during the initial assessment by the Juvenile Justice Board.
• The preliminary assessment order was flawed as the child was inappropriately held in a psychiatry ward without the presence of a psychologist or psycho-social worker experienced in working with children in difficult circumstances, as required by the Juvenile Justice Act.
• The Juvenile Justice Board failed to uphold the presumption of innocence for the child during the inquiry, as mandated by the Juvenile Justice Act, leading to a fundamental flaw in the proceedings.
• The order issued under Section 15 of the Act was not provided to the juvenile, breaching the regulations outlined in the Model Rules of 2016.
• The under-trial child was sent to District Jail against legal provisions, violating the mandates of the Act and vitiating the proceedings before the Sessions Court.
• The child underwent unlawful incarceration for a significant period, contrary to the law's stipulations, until the sentences were suspended by the Court.

Case: Shilpa Mittal v. State of NCT of Delhi and Another

• The Children's Court, as per the Supreme Court, must assess the necessity of trying a child as an adult under the Criminal Procedure Code, taking into account the child's special needs, fair trial principles, and a child-friendly environment.
• The Children's Court should formulate an individual care plan for the child's rehabilitation if tried as an adult, ensuring the child's well-being and future prospects.
• Even if a child is tried as an adult, they must be kept in a place of safety until they reach 21 years of age, with provisions for reformative services, education, skill development, therapy, counseling, and psychiatric support.
• The case raised a crucial question regarding whether offenses with varying minimum and maximum sentences can be classified as 'heinous offenses' under the Juvenile Justice Act.

Interpretation of Offences under the Juvenile Justice Act

• The Supreme Court clarified that an offense without a minimum sentence of 7 years cannot be deemed heinous. 
• Offenses with a maximum sentence exceeding 7 years but lacking a minimum sentence or having a minimum sentence below 7 years are considered serious until Parliament decides otherwise.

Case of Mumtaz Ahmed Nasir Khan v/s. The State of Maharashtra

• In this case, two juveniles were involved in the tragic murder of a young child. The older juvenile, aged 17.5 years, was to be tried as an adult, while the younger one, aged 16.5 years, was to be treated as a juvenile under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
• The decision-making process of the Juvenile Justice Board was criticized for its vagueness. The High Court emphasized the Act's reformative nature over retribution, aiming to save juvenile offenders from self-destruction and societal harm.
• The Board's preliminary assessment is crucial, involving the evaluation of the child's mental and physical capacities, understanding of the offense, and more. If the Board deems necessary, it proceeds with a trial-like procedure, subject to appeal.
• The modern influence of media and technology on children, from TV to the internet and social media, has accelerated their exposure to adult content, potentially leading to negative consequences. Protecting childhood innocence is essential amidst these advancements.

Revisiting Section 15 of the Act

• For a juvenile to face trial as an adult, certain circumstances must be met:
  • It must involve a heinous offense.
  • The child must be at least sixteen years old.
• A preliminary assessment by the Board must have been conducted, considering:
  • Physical and mental capacity of the child to commit the offense.
  • The child's understanding of the consequences of the offense.
  • The circumstances surrounding the alleged offense.
  • All four aspects of the preliminary assessment must be fulfilled, as none are dispensable.

Social Investigation Report and Evaluative Criteria

• The Social Investigation Report highlights factors favoring the older juvenile, except for neighborhood perception.
• The report notes the older juvenile's admission of the incident and remorse, despite being an extra-judicial confession.
• Although the juvenile is seen as manipulative and evasive, the gravity of the offense weighs heavily on the report.
• Assessing the Board's decision to try the older juvenile as an adult using Kent's criteria:
  • Seriousness of the offense to the community and the need for protection.
  • Manner in which the offense was committed (not aggressive, violent, premeditated).
  • Nature of the offense (against persons or property).
  • Evidence supporting the complaint and the likelihood of a guilty verdict.

The Importance of Unified Trial and Disposition

• It is crucial to handle the entire offense in one court when the juvenile's associates are adults.
• This ensures a comprehensive and coherent legal process for all involved parties.

Evaluating Juvenile Sophistication and Maturity

• Consider factors like the juvenile's home environment, emotional state, and behavior patterns.
• For example, despite displaying some sophistication post-offense, a stable family life and normal behavior indicate a lack of concerning maturity issues.

Assessing Juvenile Record and History

• Review the juvenile's past interactions with the law, including any involvement with authorities or previous institutional commitments.
• A clean record, dedication to education, and parental guidance suggest a lack of criminal inclinations.

Considering Public Safety and Rehabilitation

• Evaluate the potential for protecting the public and rehabilitating the juvenile effectively.
• Post-incident repercussions and the juvenile's behavior in an Observation Home can offer insights into rehabilitation prospects.

Interpreting Section 15 of the Act

• Understand that the initial assessment is not a trial but a way to gauge the juvenile's comprehension of the alleged offense.
• It is crucial to view Section 15 in light of the Act's reformative, rather than punitive, intentions.

Exploring Innovative Solutions

• Emphasize the need for creative problem-solving in addressing juvenile delinquency.
• Consider unconventional ideas like those proposed in "Freakonomics" to tackle societal issues effectively.

Avoiding Retributive Approaches

• Advocate against punitive measures unless absolutely necessary due to severe circumstances.
• Suggest that rehabilitation and prevention should be prioritized over retribution for juvenile offenders.

Rehabilitation of Offenders

• Principle of Redemption
  • A person, even a convict, can reform and contribute positively to society if given the chance.
  • It is essential not to condemn a child unless their actions demonstrate a pattern of severe negativity.
• Concept of Just Deserts
  • Justice should not only focus on punishment but also on rectifying wrongs and preventing future issues.
  • Courts need to balance retrospective (ex post) and prospective (ex ante) viewpoints in decision-making.
• Legal Oversight Failures
  • The Board and the Appellate Court mechanically followed reports without independent analysis.
  • Courts must exercise jurisdiction properly and not merely endorse recommendations without scrutiny.

Interpretation of Legal Provisions

Role of Children's Court

• The Children's Court must assess whether a child should be treated as an adult based on reports.
• It is mandatory for the Children's Court to provide a reasoned decision regarding the trial proceedings.
• Failure to independently decide on the trial status could be considered an irregularity but not necessarily invalidate the proceedings.
• The court's decision affects the continuation of the case, either as an adult or as a child.

Juvenile Justice System

• When the Children's Court decides not to try a child as an adult, it must conduct an inquiry similar to a Board proceeding for summon cases.
• If the Children's Court chooses to try the child as an adult, it should follow the trial procedure of a Sessions Court.
• The charge/notice remains unchanged regardless of the trial procedure followed by the Children's Court.
• Children's Court must issue an order if no action has been taken under specified sections of the Juvenile Justice Act and Rules.
• If the Children's Court believes the child should not be tried as an adult, it follows Rule 13(7); if it decides otherwise, it follows Rule 13(8).

Legal Principles

• The two-tier inquiry mandated by the Act must be strictly adhered to by the Board and Children's Court, even without defense objections.
• Legislative decisions cannot be circumvented through waiver and no waiver of a child's rights is valid under Section 3 of the Act.
• Both the Act and Central Rules outline a two-tier inquiry for children aged 16 to 18 accused of serious offenses, to be strictly followed by the Board and Children's Court.

Case Precedents

• Rajiv Kumar vs. The State of Bihar 2020(1)PLJR 662: The court clarified that the Board cannot assess non-heinous offenses and transfer cases to the Children's Court without allegations of 'heinous offenses'.
• Dheeraj Badoni vs. State of Uttarakhand and Ors. (18.06.2019 UCHC) 2020CriLJ681: The Juvenile Justice Board cannot conduct a preliminary assessment for a child who is not a minor but a major.

Juvenile Justice System Overview

• Applicability of Section 15: The Juvenile Justice Board is not required to resort to Section 15 of the Act when issuing directions against a major who does not fall within the definition of a juvenile. Therefore, Section 15 does not govern directives issued by the Juvenile Justice Board.
• Consideration for Bail: The severity of the offense alone does not determine whether a child in conflict with the law should be granted bail. Other factors, beyond the seriousness of the offense, are taken into account when deciding on bail for a juvenile.
• Transfer to Children Court: Section 15 of the Amending Act deals with the transfer of a juvenile to the Children Court for trial as an adult. When a child aged 16 years or older is accused of a heinous offense, the Juvenile Justice Board must conduct a preliminary inquiry to assess various factors before deciding on the transfer of the case to the Children Court.
• Bail Criteria: Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, concerning parameters for granting bail to juvenile accused, remains unchanged. Granting or rejecting bail to a juvenile should not solely be based on the seriousness of the alleged offense but should consider various factors to ensure the juvenile's well-being and uphold justice.

Legal Precedents

• Sachin Vs. State of U.P. and Another: Emphasized that seriousness of the offense is not the sole factor in deciding bail for a child in conflict with the law.
• State of H.P. VS. Satish Chauhan and Ors.: Stressed the mandatory compliance of Section 15 by the Juvenile Justice Board, highlighting the importance of strict adherence to legal provisions before transferring cases to the Children Court.

Key Concepts

Download the notes The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015

Download as PDF

Download as PDF

Section 15 of the Act

• Provides the Juvenile Justice Board with the power to inquire into offenses allegedly committed by juveniles in conflict with the law.
• Requires a preliminary assessment to be conducted when a child above 16 years commits a heinous offense.
• The use of "may" in the provision is interpreted as a command rather than discretion, making the assessment mandatory.
• Failure to comply with this assessment can render the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 12 of the Act invalid.

Jurisdiction under Section 12 of the Act

• Valid when the Juvenile Justice Board fulfills the mandatory precursory requirements.
• Non-compliance with these requirements can result in an order being made at an incomplete stage.
• Statutory recoursing is essential to validate the exercise of jurisdiction by the Board.

Mandatory Compliance

• The Odisha High Court emphasized the mandatory nature of complying with Section 15 of the Act.
• A child aged 16 years or above at the time of committing a heinous offense necessitates a preliminary assessment by the Juvenile Justice Board.
• The use of "may" in the provision is construed as a command to ensure the purpose of the amended Act is fulfilled.

Case Example - Manas Kumar Khuntia vs. State of Orissa (18.08.2016 - ORIHC) : 2016(II)OLR 935

• The Odisha High Court highlighted the importance of mandatory compliance with Section 15 of the Act.
• Emphasized the need for a preliminary assessment by the Juvenile Justice Board for children above 16 years committing heinous offenses.
• Interpretation of "may" in the provision as a command to ensure the effectiveness of the amended Act.

Case Example - Bholu vs. C.B.I. 2019(1)RCR(Criminal) 603

• Provide a brief description or key points of the case.
• Explain the relevance to the topic discussed.
• Utilize examples to illustrate key concepts.

Key Legal Ruling by Punjab and Haryana High Court

• The Punjab and Haryana High Court emphasized strict adherence to Section 15 of the Act for cases falling under the category of heinous offenses.

Requirement of Preliminary Assessment

• When a child above 16 years is involved in a serious offense, Section 15 of the Act necessitates a preliminary assessment.
• The Board must follow specific rules (Rule 10, 10A) and provisions (Section 14, 15, 18(3)) for this assessment in cases of heinous offenses.
• The Child Welfare Police Officer is mandated to submit witness statements and related documents within a month of the child's first appearance before the Board.

Importance of Preliminary Assessment

• The preliminary assessment serves as a crucial step in determining whether a child should be tried as an adult for heinous offenses.
• It is essential for the Board to consider three fundamental parameters before deciding on trying a child as an adult.
• The Board's decision-making process must involve a thorough evaluation of the circumstances surrounding the alleged offense.

Deficiencies in the Case

• In this specific case, crucial documents like the list of witnesses were not provided to the petitioner or their guardians, indicating a failure to adhere to legal provisions.
• The Board and Appellate Court's decisions were deemed as lacking proper consideration and contradicting the relevant laws and rules.

Role of Experts in Assessment

• The proviso to Section 15 allows the Board to seek assistance from experienced psychologists or other experts for the preliminary assessment.
• Psychological evaluation is crucial to understand the mental capacity of the juvenile offender and their comprehension of the offense's consequences.
• Ignoring expert recommendations for further assessments can impact the accuracy of the evaluation process.

Assessment of Mental Capacity

• Age Discrepancy: The evaluation of a 16.5-year-old child's mental capacity was disregarded by both the Board and the Appellate Authority.
• Denied Cross Examination: The petitioner's request to cross-examine the psychologist was rejected, hindering a comprehensive assessment.
• Contradictory Reports: The social investigation report presented inconsistencies, rendering it unreliable.
• Lack of Test Disclosure: Copies of the tests were not provided beforehand to the petitioner or guardians, impeding their understanding of the assessment process.
• Irrelevant Tests: The tests conducted, Coloured Progressive Matrices (CPM) and Malin's Intelligence Scale for Indian Children (MISIC), were found to be unsuitable for a child of the petitioner's age.
• Expert Opinion: The psychologist's recommendation for further assessment by a higher authority raised doubts about the initial evaluation.
• IQ Test Concerns: The IQ test conducted when the petitioner was over 16 years and 9 months old yielded questionable results, indicating a discrepancy in mental age determination.

Legal Precedents

• Achawal and Ors. vs. State of Assam and Ors. (20.05.2019): Emphasized that preliminary assessments are not trials but serve to evaluate a child's capacity to understand alleged offenses.
• Bhanwarlal vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (16.11.2018): Established the distinction between preliminary assessments and trials, highlighting the assessment's purpose in determining a child's understanding of the consequences of an offense.

Overview of Preliminary Assessment under the Juvenile Justice Act

• Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act does not require a preliminary assessment for a child involved in an offense committed before the Act's commencement.

Key Rulings and Interpretations

• Pradeep Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi (2019) 260 DLT 641 (Delhi):
  • The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) can seek assistance from experts for a preliminary assessment, which aims to evaluate a Child in Conflict with Law's (CCL) capacity to understand the consequences of the alleged offense.
  • The JJB considers various factors mentioned in Section 15 while making decisions, independently assessing the circumstances of the alleged offense.
• Puneet S. v. State of Karnataka, 2019 (4) AKR 662:
  • Section 15 of the JJ Act outlines the procedure for conducting a preliminary assessment, especially for heinous offenses involving individuals aged between 16 and 18.
  • The Board can utilize the expertise of psychologists or other professionals to assess the mental and physical capacity of the accused and their understanding of the offense's consequences.
  • If the Board is satisfied with the preliminary assessment, it can handle the case internally without sending the juvenile to trial in Sessions Court.

Understanding the Provisions of Section 15 and 18 of the JJ Act

• Main Objective of Section 15: Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act aims to determine the accused's total capacity by considering facts and expert opinions if required. It is not a mere formality but a detailed assessment process.
• Authority to Pass Orders: Judges, including Sessions Judges and Special Judges, lack the jurisdiction to issue orders under Section 15. This power is specifically designated to the Board.
• Procedure for Trial: If the Board concludes that it has jurisdiction, it must adhere to the procedures outlined in Section 15 for the trial. If the accused is deemed fit for trial as an adult, the case may be transferred to the appropriate court after due consideration.
• Lack of Jurisdiction: The Additional Sessions Judge in Kolar did not possess the authority to issue orders under Section 15. The failure to consider the relevant provisions led to an unsustainable decision.