Justice Devan Ramachandran, Justice M.B. Snehalatha, Kerala High Court
Revision Petition Before A HC Is Not Maintainable Challenging Juvenile Justice Board’s Decision To Try A Minor As An Adult: Kerala HC
|The Kerala High Court dismissed the Revision Petition filed by an accused who was a minor at the time of the alleged offence.
The Kerala High Court has held that a Revision Petition before a High Court challenging the Juvenile Justice Board’s decision to try a minor as an adult is not maintainable.
The Court dismissed the Revision Petition filed by a Child in Conflict with Law (Petitioner), challenging the Order of the Juvenile Justice Board (Board) which directed that he be tried as an adult for offences under Sections 354, 451, 342, 506, 376(3) and 376(2)(n) of the IPC and various Sections of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
A Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice MB Snehalatha held, “In such view, we cannot find this revision to be maintainable before us; and in any case, as rightly argued by Sri.P.M.Shameer, it may cause a disservice to the petitioner because, he would be denuded of a valuable right of Appeal, under Section 101(2) of the ‘Act’; before the Children’s Court/Sessions Court, especially when he may obtain further rights as per the Statutory Scheme.”
Advocate V.N. Sankarjee represented the Petitioner, while Government Pleader PM Shameer appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts
An FIR was registered against the Petitioner, who was 16 years old at the time of the alleged offence.
The Board, after conducting a preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (the Act), ordered that the Petitioner had sufficient maturity to understand the act committed and that there was no infirmity in his mind or body. It was further held that he should be tried as an adult under the provisions of Section 18(3) of the Act.
The Petitioner challenged this Order before the Kerala High Court through the Revision Petition.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court held that the Petitioner had an appellate remedy under Section 101(2) of the Act, which he did not exercise.
The Bench explained that “this Court is invested with jurisdiction only to verify the legality and propriety of an order passed by the Board and nothing more. In other words, this Court does not exercise appellate jurisdiction at this stage, but can only revise an order, which has been issued in violation of law and propriety.”
“Whether these reports are valid in law, or whether they are sufficient within the knell of the Statutory requirements, are matters which can certainly be projected by the petitioner only in appellate procedure and not through a revision before this Court under Section 102 of the Act,” it remarked.
Consequently, the Court held that “right of appeal is certainly available to the petitioner and going by our view above, it would be necessary for the Children’s Court to consider every aspect, even if it were not to be filed because it certainly will have to consider the reference already made to it by this Court.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Revision Petition.
Cause Title: XXX v. State of Kerala & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:670)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates V.N. Sankarjee, V.N.Madhusudanan, R.Udaya Jyothi, M.M.Vinod, M.Suseela, Keerthi B. Chandran, Vijayan Pillai P.K., C.Purushothaman Nair, Sineesh K.M. and Shilpa P.S.
Respondent: Government Pleader PM Shameer; Amicus Curiae R Bindu