In a significant ruling on the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the Supreme Court has held that a Children's Court cannot directly proceed with the trial of a child in conflict with law as an adult after receiving a case from the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB). The Court ruled that passing a reasoned order under Section 19(1) of the Act is a mandatory legal requirement before any such trial can begin.
Holding that this safeguard was ignored in the present case, the Court set aside the appellant's conviction and sentence for murder, observing that the entire trial stood vitiated because of the procedural lapse.
Background of the Case
The case arose from the death of a man following an alleged assault in Kaithal, Haryana, in October 2018. According to the prosecution, the appellant, who was around 16½ years old at the time, was among several persons accused of attacking the deceased with weapons during a quarrel.
Following investigation, the Juvenile Justice Board conducted the preliminary assessment required under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act and concluded that the child possessed the mental and physical capacity to face trial as an adult. The matter was then transferred to the Children's Court under Section 18(3) of the Act.
The Additional Sessions Judge, functioning as the Children's Court, convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to 14 years' rigorous imprisonment. The Punjab and Haryana High Court later affirmed the conviction.
Before examining the evidence in the case, the Supreme Court considered a fundamental legal question: whether the conviction could survive when the Children's Court had not passed an order under Section 19(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act before conducting the trial.
The Bench noted that although the Juvenile Justice Board had completed the preliminary assessment under Section 15, the Children's Court had skipped the next mandatory statutory step and proceeded straight to trial as if the appellant was an adult.
Court's Observations
Justice Aravind Kumar, speaking for the Bench, explained that the statutory scheme creates a two-stage process.
First, the Juvenile Justice Board conducts a preliminary assessment in cases involving children aged between 16 and 18 years accused of heinous offences. Once the matter reaches the Children's Court, that court must independently determine whether the child should actually be tried as an adult or whether the case should instead be handled as a juvenile inquiry.
Rejecting the argument that Section 19(1) merely gives discretion, the Court held that the word "may" in the provision must be read as "shall" because the decision fundamentally affects the child's rights, the procedure to be followed and the range of punishment that may ultimately be imposed.
The Bench observed:
"Passing of an order under Section 19(1) of the Act is mandatory in nature and without passing an order under Section 19(1), the Children's Court cannot proceed with the matter further."
The Court further said that the determination under Section 19(1) is not an empty procedural formality because a child tried as an adult faces consequences substantially different from one dealt with under the juvenile justice framework.
Why the Conviction Could Not Stand
The Supreme Court relied on its earlier rulings, including Ajeet Gurjar v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Thirumoorthy v. State, to reiterate that compliance with Sections 15 and 19 of the Juvenile Justice Act is mandatory.
In the present case, while the Juvenile Justice Board had complied with Section 15 by conducting the preliminary assessment, the Children's Court failed to discharge its own statutory obligation under Section 19(1).
The Court observed that this omission affected the very jurisdiction under which the trial was conducted. Since the Children's Court never formally determined whether the appellant should face trial as an adult, the subsequent Sessions trial and conviction could not be legally sustained.
The Bench considered whether the matter should be remanded to the Children's Court for fresh compliance with Section 19(1). However, it declined to do so.
The Court noted that the appellant is now about 24 years old and has already spent more than six years in custody. At this stage, it would not be possible to meaningfully assess the mental capacity that existed when the alleged offence occurred, making a remand ineffective.
Supreme Court's Decision
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction recorded by the Children's Court and the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court for failure to comply with Section 19(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act.
The Court also issued a direction to Children's Courts across the country, stating that whenever a case is transferred by a Juvenile Justice Board under Section 18(3), the first duty of the Children's Court, after taking cognizance, is to pass a reasoned order under Section 19(1) before proceeding further.
Since the appellant was already on bail, the Court discharged the bail bonds and disposed of all pending applications.
Case Details:
Case Title: SAGAR vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA
Case Number: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8113 of 2024
Judge: Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
Decision Date: July 13, 2026
-300x169.webp)
