Absence Of Preliminary Assessment U/S 15 JJ Act Bars Treating Juvenile As Adult; Bail Cannot Be Denied On Conjectural Apprehensions: Supreme Court
The Court noted that wrongful detention of a juvenile in an adult jail, despite being declared a juvenile, violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The Supreme Court has held that in the absence of a valid preliminary assessment under Sections 15 and 18 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, a juvenile cannot be treated as an adult. Further, noted that once a child is declared a juvenile, courts must adhere strictly to the reformative framework under the JJ Act rather than deny bail on conjectural apprehensions.
On noting that the Appellate Court denied bail considering the alleged offence as ‘extremely disgusting, heinous and gruesome’, the Bench clarified that the statutory scheme mandates a two-stage determination before a child above 16 years but below 18 years can be tried as an adult. It noted that such observations are relevant only where the JJ Board, after a Section 15 preliminary assessment, has decided to try the child as an adult under Section 18(3) of the Act.
Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar while hearing an appeal against the Allahabad High Court’s refusal of bail to a juvenile accused in a double murder case (with a hammer), observed, “…we do not find any order of the JJB or any designated Children’s Court to the effect that there was a need for trial of the Appellant as an adult. In absence thereof, we are of the firm view that the observations as made by the High Court is wholly unwarranted and cannot be countenanced with the spirit and object of the JJ Act. Once the Appellant stood declared a juvenile, the course adopted by the High Court is based on surmises and conjectures, which cannot be sustained in law…”.
S. C. Birla, AOR appeared for the appellant and Pradeep Misra, AOR appeared for the respondent.
The appellant had been declared a juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board, Agra, based on school records establishing his age as below 18 years on the date of the incident. However, his bail plea was rejected by the Board, the appellate court, and the High Court, primarily citing the heinous nature of the offence and apprehensions of reoffending.
The High Court, in revision, observed that since the accused was between 16 and 18 years and involved in a heinous offence, his trial was proceeding as that of an adult, and his release would defeat the ends of justice.
The Supreme Court found this reasoning erroneous, and held that no preliminary assessment under Section 15 had been conducted, nor had any order been passed transferring the case for trial as an adult under Section 18(3). In the absence of such determination, the juvenile could not be treated as an adult. The Court further noted that the District Probation Officer’s report did not justify continued detention and, in fact, supported rehabilitative intervention.
The Court also expressed serious concern that despite being declared a juvenile, the appellant remained lodged in a regular jail for over two and a half years, calling it a grave infraction of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and a constitutional tort arising from systemic failure and lack of coordination.
“…the Appellate Court, merely relied upon the nature of the offence, describing it as ‘extremely disgusting, heinous and gruesome.’ Nonetheless, such an observation was germane only if such conclusion was arrived at by the JJB at the stage of preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the JJ Act, prior to passing an order under Section 18(3). In our considered view, the Appellate Court has thus failed to take into account the intent and 16 object of the provisions of the JJ Act...”, the Court noted.
“Before parting, we would like to observe that cases like the present one reflect a serious and systemic lack of coordination and sensitivity amongst all the stakeholders entrusted with the administration of juvenile justice framework. The statutory mandate of the JJ Act is not merely procedural but also advances the guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as expressed in its clause of object and reasons. Therefore, prompt and humane treatment of CCL is required to be undertaken in light of the objectives of the act…”, the Bench remarked
Allowing the appeal, the Court set aside the High Court’s order and upheld the grant of bail. It recorded the State’s submission that ₹5 lakh had been paid as compensation and accepted a Standard Operating Procedure to ensure prompt transfer of juveniles to observation homes. Directions were issued for circulation of the SOP and the judgment to all High Courts, State authorities, and judicial academies.
Cause Title: Juvenile Delinquent v. State of U.P. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 387)
Appellant: S. C. Birla, AOR, Subrat Birla, Advocate.
Respondent: Pradeep Misra, AOR, Daleep Dhyani, Suraj Singh, Ravi Raghunath, AOR, Advocates.