The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 overrides the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act, 2008 when it comes to trying juveniles, even if the offence involves serious charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The judgment was delivered by Justice Sanjay Dwivedi on May 19, 2025, in response to a reference from the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bhopal.
The reference sought clarity on whether a juvenile accused of various serious offences—including sections of the IPC, Explosive Substances Act, Railways Act, Public Property Act, and UAPA—should be tried by a Special NIA Court or the Children’s Court. The juvenile was part of a case originally registered by the NIA and pending as a special case. It was noted that the accused was under 18 at the time of the incident.
Read Also:- Madhya Pradesh High Court: Once Granted, AGP Benefits Cannot Be Taken Away Without Retrospective Effect
The Juvenile Justice Board had assessed the juvenile as mentally and physically capable of understanding the gravity of the crimes and directed the case to the Children’s Court under Section 18(3) of the JJ Act. However, since the Children’s Court was not notified under the NIA Act, the confusion over jurisdiction led to the reference.
The NIA's counsel argued that the trial must be conducted by a Special NIA Court, citing the special nature of the NIA Act and its overriding non-obstante clause under Section 13. They emphasized the serious nature of scheduled offences that affect national security and require a specific judicial process.
In contrast, Amicus Curiae Shri Anil Khare contended that Section 1(4) of the JJ Act clearly provides an overriding effect over “any other law for the time being in force.” He pointed out that this section includes matters related to prosecution, detention, and rehabilitation of juveniles. Since the JJ Act is both later in time and more specific regarding juvenile justice, the jurisdiction should rest with the Children’s Court.
Quoting from the order:
“It is hereby held that when the FIR is registered under a Scheduled Act prescribed under the NIA Act and a juvenile has been directed to be tried as an adult by the Children's Court, then the jurisdiction to try the case would vest in the Children's Court and not in the Special Judge under the NIA Act.”
The Court highlighted that Section 13 of the NIA Act only overrides the Code of Criminal Procedure, not other laws. In contrast, the JJ Act explicitly overrides any existing law and includes a wider scope—covering apprehension, prosecution, and rehabilitation of children in conflict with law.
The judgment also referenced past decisions and constitutional principles that support the protection and welfare of juveniles, citing the Supreme Court’s views that juvenile justice laws are “beneficial and socially oriented legislation.”
Justice Dwivedi emphasized:
“A person cannot be a juvenile for one purpose and an adult for another. The JJ Act must be interpreted to further its objective of care and rehabilitation for children.”
In conclusion, the Court affirmed that the JJ Act will prevail over the NIA Act in such matters. The reference was answered in favor of the Children’s Court's jurisdiction, ensuring that even in serious offences, juvenile rights and procedures under the JJ Act are upheld.
Case Title: In Reference Vs. Memo No.454/2024 Bhopal Dated 23/11/2024, Misc. Criminal Case No.1133/2025
Amicus Curiae: Senior Advocate Anil Khare with Advocate A.J. Mathew
Special Public Prosecutor for NIA: Advocate Deepesh Joshi
