Supreme Court: JJ Act 2015 Does Not Confer The Power Of Review Upon Juvenile Justice Board
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Allahabad High Court, which held that the date of birth of the accused mentioned in the school certificate was determinative.
Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act) does not confer the power of review upon the Juvenile Justice Board.
The Court upheld the decision of the Allahabad High Court, which held that the date of birth of the accused mentioned in the school certificate was determinative and it did not find any reason to disbelieve or ignore the same. The Court upheld that the accused was a juvenile delinquent on the date of the incident alleged under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the IPC.
A Bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held, “. It is not open to the JJB to say in subsequent proceeding that date of birth of respondent No. 2 is not 08.09.2003 and thereafter proceed to have the opinion of the medical board. If this is permitted, it will amount to reviewing its earlier order. The JJ Act, 2015 confers no such power of review upon the JJB. It is trite law that power of review is either statutorily conferred or by necessary implication. No such power of JJB is traceable under the JJ Act, 2015.”
AOR Amita Singh Kalkal appeared for the Appellant, while AOR Vijendra Singh represented the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The Appellant, the mother of the accused, preferred a Petition before the High Court, assailing the judgment of the Trial Court, which set aside the Order of the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), declaring that the accused was a juvenile delinquent on the date of the incident. The High Court, by the impugned Order held that the date of birth of the accused mentioned in the school certificate is determinative and did not find any reason to disbelieve or ignore the same. The High Court observed that the high school certificate of the accused was available on record and that the said certificate ought not to have been ignored by the JJB. The High Court dismissed the Petition upholding the Order of the Trial Court.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court remarked, “In the present case, the JJB itself had accepted in a previous proceeding, the date of birth of respondent No. 2 to be 08.09.2003 but the ground given for not accepting the same is that the present informant was not a party to the said proceeding and therefore she had no occasion to raise her objection. The earlier proceeding arose out of a different incident where the appellant was not the informant. Therefore, she could not have been a party to such proceeding. Such convulated logic of the JJB was rightly reversed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge and affirmed by the High Court.”
The Court stated, “Admittedly, the line of reasoning adopted by the JJB is totally fallacious. When the concerned birth certificate from the school was available as well as birth certificate issued by the Meerut Municipal Corporation, JJB could not have opted for ossification test.”
“Therefore, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge was justified in reversing such decision of the JJB. Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge gave preference to the date of birth of respondent No. 2 mentioned in the high school certificate wherein his date of birth was mentioned as 08.09.2003. Thus, respondent No. 2 was 17 years 3 months 10 days on the date of the incident. Accordingly, he was declared as a juvenile delinquent,” the Bench further remarked.
“Section 18 deals with orders regarding child found to be in conflict with law. We are concerned with sub-section (3) which says that where the JJB after preliminary assessment under Section 15 passes an order that there is a need for trial of the said child as an adult, then the JJB may order transfer of the trial of the case to the Children’s Court having jurisdiction to try such offences,” the Bench explained.
Consequently, the Court ordered, “Thus having regard to the discussions made above, we find no good reason to interfere with the impugned orders. Both the appeals are accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to cost.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Rajni v. State Of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 737)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Amita Singh Kalkal; Advocate Devvrat Pradhan
Respondent: AOR Vijendra Singh and Praveen Chaturvedi; Advocates Kumar Abhinandan, Vinod Kumar, Apurva Singh and Krishna Pandey
