Belated Preliminary Assessment: Prejudicial to the Interest of CCLs
by Maharukh Adenwalla† and Gayatri Virmani††
Juvenile Justice Board
Madras High Court directs DGP to identify cases involving consensual relationship amongst pending POCSO cases; Discontinues two-finger test and potency test
If consensual relationship cases are segregated from the pending cases, it will be easy to deal with them and in appropriate cases, the Court can also exercise its jurisdiction and quash the proceedings, if the proceedings are ultimately going to be against the interest and future of the children involved in those cases and it is found to be an abuse of process of Court.
[Section 15 of JJ Act] Inquiry for trying a juvenile as an adult must be conducted in a transparent and fair manner: Bombay High Court
Bombay High Court explained that trying a child below 18 years before Juvenile Justice Board is a rule and trying a child above 16 years as an adult before Regular Court is an exception.
Mandatory Minimum Sentence for a Child in Conflict with Law: Contrary to the Spirit of Juvenile Justice
by Maharukh Adenwalla* and Gayatri Virmani**
Allahabad High Court grants bail to 16-year-old boy accused of killing mother for restraining him from playing PUBG
Allahabad High Court said that the FIR has been lodged by the grandmother of the accused and she is not an eyewitness. The other witnesses are also not the eyewitnesses in the instant matter and only on hearsay basis, the bail of the accused has been rejected.
Sessions Court or Children’s Court has not been vested with revisionary power under Juvenile Justice Act: J&K and Ladakh High Court
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court stated that revisionary power under Juvenile Justice Act vests only with the High Court
Rajasthan High Court directs to destroy record of conviction of the child in conflict with law; No ground to deny appointment as a police constable
The Court held that the employer is prohibited by law from referring to or taking in consideration the judgment of conviction so as to deprive a successful candidate, who was a child in conflict with law at some point of time from being employed in Government service.
Uttaranchal High Court grants bail to a Child-in-conflict with law considering that she was young and had less understanding to differentiate between right and wrong
A Child-in-conflict with law (CIL) was granted bail considering that she was a young girl; her family was poor; she had less understanding to distinguish between right and wrong and her family atmosphere was good. The Court also discussed situations in which a CIL could be denied bail even in bailable offences as per Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
“Juvenile can be denied bail, if his release defeats ends of justice”; Allahabad High Court upholds JJB order declining bail to a juvenile in a rape case of a 6-year-old
Allahabad High Court: In a criminal revision petition filed under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act challenging the order passed by
Can the Trial Court determine the age of the juvenile involved in a crime? Madhya Pradesh High Court answers
Madhya Pradesh High Court: Satyendra Kumar Singh, J. in a recent case affirmed that Trial Court does not have power
Mental capacity & ability to understand consequences of acts not same; Guidelines must be in place for preliminary assessment of children above 16 years of age for trial as adults: SC
“A child with average intelligence/IQ will have the intellectual knowledge of the consequences of his actions. But whether or not he is able to control himself or his actions will depend on his level of emotional competence.”
Punjab and Haryana High Court dismisses the order of the Magistrate; Only Juvenile Justice Board to pass orders where there is ‘Juvenile in conflict with law’
Punjab and Haryana High Court: While dealing with an issue on joint proceedings, Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J., held that a proceeding where
When a Child in Conflict with Law is to be tried as an adult, an assessment under S. 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is required to be done? Bom HC answers
Bombay High Court: M.G. Sewlikar, J., held that, in terms of Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
An offence committed by a ‘juvenile’ in 1981; three Juvenile Justice statutes and a legal conundrum on their applicability. Read how SC solved this riddle
Supreme Court: In a bid to clear the air over the applicability of and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Raj HC | Taking shield of Supreme Court’s order to take away the vested right of an accused, is nothing short of violating his right of liberty guaranteed under Art. 21; Court allows Bail to juvenile offender
Rajasthan High Court: Dinesh Mehta, J. allowed the revision petition filed setting aside the order dated 10-2-2020 passed by the Principal Magistrate,
Pat HC | Decision of Juvenile Justice Board to take note of radiological, dental and physical examination while deciphering the petitioner’s age, upheld
Patna High Court: Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. dismissed the revision application as the order of the Juvenile Justice Board needed no interference. The
Kar HC | Sessions Court has absolutely no power to pass an order under S. 15 of JJ Act; Statutory power vested with JJ Board
Karnataka High Court: K.N. Phaneendra, J. while allowing the present appeal against the order of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge
Del HC | S. 19(1) of JJ Act held mandatory; however, non-compliance by Children’s Court held curable irregularity
Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. declined to quash criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner even while holding that Section 19(1) of the
HP HC | Order passed by a Magistrate presiding over Juvenile Justice Board, when the Board does not meet composition criteria prescribed in JJ Act, is null and void
Himachal Pradesh High Court: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. allowed a criminal revision petition filed by the State assailing the Judgment passed by Principal
Del HC | JJ Board not bound by expert opinion in preliminary assessment, may disagree with the report and not treat CCL as adult
Delhi High Court: Chander Shekhar, J. refused to interfere with the order of the Juvenile Justice Board whereby it had directed that the two