S. 19 JJ Act | Children's Court Must Pass Reasoned Order Before Trying Child As Adult: Supreme Court

In an important direction for the Children Courts across the country, the Supreme Court on Monday (July 13) has held that a Children's Court cannot proceed to try a child in conflict with law as an adult without first passing a reasoned order under Section 19(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

Holding that this requirement is mandatory, a bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B Varale set aside the murder conviction of a man who was 16½ years old at the time of the alleged offence, observing that the entire trial stood vitiated due to non-compliance with the statutory procedure.

“…we deem it appropriate to issue a word of caution and a direction to Children's Courts across the country that upon receipt of records pursuant to transfer/committal under Section 18(3) of the Act by the Juvenile Justice Board, the first duty of the Children's Court, after taking cognizance of the matter, is to pass a reasoned order under Section 19(1) of the Act upon due assessment of the 'child in conflict with law' before it proceeds further in the matter.”, the Court observed.

The case arose from an incident in October 2018 in Haryana in which the appellant, then aged 16 years and six months, was accused of participating in an assault that resulted in the death of a man.

Since the appellant was above 16 years of age and was accused of a heinous offence, the Juvenile Justice Board conducted a preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act. The Board concluded that he possessed the mental and physical capacity to commit the offence and transferred the matter to the Children's Court under Section 18(3) for trial as an adult.

However, after receiving the case, the Children's Court directly proceeded with the sessions trial and ultimately convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC, sentencing him to 14 years' rigorous imprisonment. The High Court upheld the conviction.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that the Children's Court had failed to comply with the mandatory requirement under Section 19(1) of the Act before commencing the trial.

Setting aside the conviction, the judgment authored by Justice Aravind Kumar, relying on Thirumoorthy v. State, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 262, where the conviction was also set aside due to non-compliance of mandatory provisions of the Act, including Section 19, observed:

“In the absence of compliance with Section 19(1), which is determinative of the procedure to be followed by the Court, whether a Sessions trial or a summons case, the entire trial stands vitiated. We are, therefore, left with no option but to follow the course adopted in Thirumoorthy.”

“…the conviction recorded by the Children's Court, having been rendered in non-compliance with the mandate of Section 19(1) of the Act, cannot be sustained.”, the Court held.

In terms of the aforesaid, the appeal was allowed, acquitting the Appellant-accused.

Headnote

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Sections 15, 18(3), and 19(1) – Mandate of Section 19(1) for Children's Court upon committal – Held that the word 'may' occurring in Section 19(1) must be read as 'shall' - Passing a reasoned order under Section 19(1) by the Children's Court determining whether a child in conflict with law (CICL) needs to be tried as an adult or as a child is mandatory and not a mere procedural formality - Without such an order, the Children's Court cannot assume jurisdiction to proceed with a Sessions trial.

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016 – Rule 13 – Trial of Juvenile as an Adult without Section 19(1) determination – Effect of Non compliance – Held: Even if a preliminary assessment under Section 15 is duly conducted by the Juvenile Justice Board, the failure of the Children's Court to independently apply its mind and pass a reasoned order under Section 19(1) strikes at the very root of the protective framework - The distinct statutory differentiation between a Sessions trial (for adults) and a summons inquiry (for children) makes this step substantive - Non-compliance vitiates the entire trial - Since the appellant has crossed 24 years of age and spent over six years in incarceration, a meaningful retrospective assessment is unfeasible; hence, the conviction and sentence are set aside - Direction to Trial Courts – Held that all Children's Courts across the country, upon receipt of records transferred under Section 18(3), must first take cognizance and immediately pass a reasoned order under Section 19(1) after due application of mind before taking any further steps in the trial. [Relied on Ajeet Gurjar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2023) 15 SCC 678; Thirumoorthy v. State rep. by the Inspector of Police, (2024) 12 SCC 307; Paras 10-15]

Cause Title: SAGAR VERSUS THE STATE OF HARYANA

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 666

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Ranbir Singh Kundu, Adv. Ms. Kirti Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Akash, Adv. Mr. Shitanshu Saklani, Adv. Mr. Shubham Mavi, Adv. Mr. Ashish Pandey, AOR Mr. Lakshya Singh, Adv. Mr. Ali Mohammed Khan, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Keshav Mittal, Adv. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Gaj Singh, Adv. Mr. Anuj Sehrawat, Adv. Mr. Sahil Gandass, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Dhull, Adv. Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Adv.