S.101(2) JJ Act | Not Mandatory For Court Hearing Appeal Against JJB Order To Take Child Psychologist Assistance : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has recently clarified that the mandate to seek the assistance of a child psychologist expert while undertaking a preliminary assessment of a child in conflict with law would not apply mutatis mutandis to Section 101(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. As per the proviso to Section 15(1), while deciding whether the child in conflict with...
The Supreme Court has recently clarified that the mandate to seek the assistance of a child psychologist expert while undertaking a preliminary assessment of a child in conflict with law would not apply mutatis mutandis to Section 101(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
As per the proviso to Section 15(1), while deciding whether the child in conflict with law to be tried as an adult, the Board is mandatorily required to take an expert assistance of a child psychologist where it does not comprise of a professional with a degree in child psychology or child psychiatry, as held in Barun Chandra Thakur v. Bholu, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 593.
A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has now clarified that the mandate to seek a child psychologist's assistance would not be applicable while hearing appeals by the Sessions Court under Section 101 of the JJ Act. Giving literal construction to the provision, the Court said that “the only duty cast on the Session Court/Appellate Court is to examine, as per the facts of each case, whether circumstances necessitating the exercise of that power exist.”
“The net effect of the aforesaid discussion is that Section 101(2) confers a power upon the Appellate Court to seek the assistance of experts, the exercise of which remains within the discretion of the Court, to be assessed by weighing the factors discussed above on the facts of each case. To give context for better exposition, for instance, where the Board has failed in taking the assistance of experts while conducting the preliminary assessment, the Court considering the facts and circumstances before it would seek assistance of experts. In such circumstances, the decision of the Court would again be governed by the Act, more particularly, the principle of best interest of the child, and sensitivity of time in psychological evaluation.”, the Court observed.
Background
The court was hearing an appeal filed by a child in conflict with law, who challenged the Patna High Court's decision approving trial against him as an adult in a murder case.
Initially, the Juvenile Justice Board refused to treat the Appellant as an adult, following which an appeal was filed before the Sessions Court.
The Sessions Court set aside the JJ Board's order and held the Appellant to be tried as an adult.
Aggrieved by the Sessions Court's order, the appellant filed a revision petition before the High Court contending that the Appellate Court failed to take the assistance of experienced psychologists and medical specialists in terms of Section 101(2) of the JJ Act.
The High Court's refusal to interfere with the impugned findings led to the filing of an appeal before the Supreme Court.
Also From Judgment: JJ Act - Murder Is 'Heinous Offence', Not 'Serious Offence'; S 302 IPC Implies Minimum Life Sentence: Supreme Court
Case Title: X v. State of Bihar & Anr.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 702