Supreme CourtCriminal Law – Bail - Juvenile Justice - Sexual Offences - Sex Education - Supreme Court reiterated its direction to the State of Uttar Pradesh to file an additional affidavit informing the Court on how sex education is provided as a part of the curriculum in higher secondary schools (Classes IX to XII) so that young adolescents are made aware of the hormonal changes that come...
Supreme Court
Criminal Law – Bail - Juvenile Justice - Sexual Offences - Sex Education - Supreme Court reiterated its direction to the State of Uttar Pradesh to file an additional affidavit informing the Court on how sex education is provided as a part of the curriculum in higher secondary schools (Classes IX to XII) so that young adolescents are made aware of the hormonal changes that come with puberty and the consequences that may flow therefrom — Pursuant to the direction, an additional affidavit was filed detailing the curriculum provided by the Secondary Education Department, Uttar Pradesh, for classes IX to XII, which was stated to be in keeping with the directives of the National Council of Educational Research & Training (NCERT)— Need for earlier implementation — Supreme Court opined that sex education should be provided to the children from a younger age and not class IX onwards — It is for the authorities concerned to apply their mind and take corrective measures, so that children are informed of the changes that happen after puberty and the care and cautions to be taken in relation thereto — That aspect was left open for the authorities concerned to take necessary steps. [Para 7-10] Juvenile X v. State of U.P., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 989
Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000 - Rule 12 - Determination of age - Evidentiary value of school certificates vs. Public Documents and Medical Opinion - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 35 - Relevancy of Entry in public Record - Section 74 - Public Documents - High Court declared respondent 2 as 'Juvenile' – Held, a school transfer certificate issued by a private school where entry of date of birth was based solely on the oral representation of the father, without any supporting documents, is unreliable - Such school's records are not “public documents” and its Headmaster is not a 'public master' for the purposes of Evidences Act - In cases where school records about age on oral representations and are contradicted by statutory documents like a Family Register (maintained under U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947), Voters List and a Medical Board Report, the latter hold more weight - Medical evidence based on scientific investigation should be given due weight and precedence over school administration records that give rise to hypothesis and speculation - Benevolent legislation of the Juvenile Justice Act is meant for genuine child accused and cannot be used as a ploy to subvert justice by accused individuals of matured mind - In serious offences, documents and statutory public records should take precedence over school records that create reasonable doubt about juvenility - Set aside order of High Court - Appeal allowed. [Paras 21-23, 25, 26] Suresh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 761 : 2025 INSC 918
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (JJ Act) – Section 7-A - Children's Act, 1960 – Article 21 of the Constitution of India – Illegal Detention/Breach of Article 21 - Murder Convict – Claim of Juvenility - Supreme Court ordered release of the murder convict under the JJ Act, after finding he was a juvenile at the time of commission of offence in 1981 – Held, JJ Act is retrospective in operation, and applies to offences pre-dated the enforcement of the JJ Act - The plea of juvenility, which can be raised at any stage, is governed by Section 7-A of the JJ Act, 2000 - This section mandates that courts are under an obligation to consider the plea and grant appropriate relief if the convict was a juvenile on the date of the offence - The maximum period of detention for a juvenile under the JJ Act, 2000, is 3 years as per Section 15(1)(g) - Since the petitioner was a child at the time of the offence and had been behind bars for more than 3 years, his liberty was curtailed "not in accordance with procedure established by law." Breach of the right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution is "writ large," thereby extending the benefit of release from detention - The Court considered the respondent's contentions regarding the heinous nature of the offence (murder) and the petitioner's act of absconding and evading arrest from 2009 to 2022. However, the Court granted relief, noting that the petitioner had "suffered incarceration for more than the period permissible in law - Appeal allowed. [Relied on Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand 2005 3 SCC 551; Dharambir v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2010 5 SCC 344; Para 4, 5, 12-14] Hansraj v. State of U.P., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 993 : 2025 INSC 1211
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015; Issue of juvenility and the failure of the judicial machinery to recognize and act upon the constitutional mandate regarding juvenile justice. The appellant was convicted of culpable homicide amounting to murder in 1994 and sentenced to death. Throughout the legal proceedings, he consistently claimed to be a juvenile at the time of the offense, but his plea was ignored by the trial court, High Court, and even the Supreme Court in earlier rounds of litigation. Held, a plea of juvenility, which was not properly considered by Courts as per due procedure, cannot be treated as final. Therefore, a fresh plea of juvenility can be raised when the plea of juvenility was improperly adjudicated upon in the previous rounds. The Court emphasized the paramount duty of the judiciary to unearth the truth and ensure justice, particularly in cases involving juveniles. Procedural and substantive laws should not obstruct the discovery of truth, especially in social welfare legislations like the Juvenile Justice Act. The Court reiterated that the plea of juvenility can be raised at any stage, even after the final disposal of a case, and must be adjudicated upon in accordance with the law. The Supreme Court found that the appellant was indeed 14 years old at the time of the offense, as evidenced by school certificates and medical reports. The Court criticized the lower courts for ignoring crucial documents and failing to follow the procedural mandates of the Juvenile Justice Act. The appellant's incarceration for over 25 years was a grave injustice, and directed his immediate release, while maintaining his conviction. The Court also ordered the State Legal Services Authority to assist in his rehabilitation and reintegration into society. This judgment underscores the importance of the judiciary's role in ensuring justice for juveniles and the need for courts to actively seek the truth, particularly in cases involving vulnerable individuals. The Court's decision to allow the plea of juvenility even after final disposal of the case sets a significant precedent for future cases involving juvenile offenders. Om Prakash @ Israel @ Raju @ Raju Das v State of Uttarakhand, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 35
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015; Sections 15 and 94(2) - Juvenile Justice Board — Lack of Review Jurisdiction — Contradictory Findings on Juvenility Impermissible - The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) constituted under the JJ Act, 2015 possesses no power of review, either expressly or by necessary implication, over its prior orders determining juvenility. Once the JJB accepts documentary evidence such as a school certificate establishing the date of birth of a child in conflict with law (in this case, 08.09.2003), it cannot in subsequent proceedings disregard the same, adopt a contradictory stance, or resort to medical opinion (e.g., ossification test estimating age as 21 years) to reopen the issue. Such action amounts to an impermissible review of its earlier order. Under Section 94(2) of the Act, medical evidence is admissible only in the absence of conclusive documentary proof; school records carry superior evidentiary value and cannot be overridden by subsidiary ossification tests. The Supreme Court thus upheld the High Court's grant of bail to the juvenile respondent, holding that a preliminary assessment under Section 15 recommending trial as an adult does not negate the statutory right to bail absent evidence of threat to the juvenile or society. Appeal dismissed. (Para 29) Rajni v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 602 : 2025 INSC 737
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015; Sections 3(xiv), 24 - Disclosure of Juvenile Conviction in Character Certificate - Whether disclosure of a juvenile's conviction in a character certificate violates Section 24 and affects future employment prospects. Held, Section 24 protects juveniles by prohibiting disqualification from past convictions and mandating non-disclosure of such records in public or official documents. The Court quashed the portion of the appellant's character certificate disclosing his juvenile conviction and directed authorities to refrain from disclosing such records in future verifications. The High Court's dismissal of the appellant's petition for availability of an alternative remedy was erroneous, as it overlooked the violation of the JJ Act's rehabilitative intent. Section 24 promotes rehabilitation by preventing stigma from past convictions and mandates destruction of records after a specified period. Disclosure in official certificates undermines reintegration and contravenes the JJ Act's protective framework. As the appellant's offense was not heinous, its inclusion in records was unwarranted, posing no threat to public safety. Appeal allowed; character certificate quashed to the extent of disclosing juvenile conviction; authorities directed to ensure non-disclosure and prevent disqualification based on juvenile record. (Para 9, 14, 16) Lokesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 245
Real-Time Data Collection - The Court supported proposals for a structured mechanism to track POCSO cases, sex education implementation, counseling services, and child marriage monitoring to enhance institutional accountability and transparency. A notice was issued to the Union of India to form a committee to address these suggestions. States and Union Territories were directed to ensure compliance with POCSO and Juvenile Justice Act provisions, with compliance reports to be submitted to the Ministry of Women and Child Development. (Paras 15, 31) In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 617 : 2025 INSC 778
Victim, now married to the accused and living with him and their child, did not perceive the incident as a crime. The victim's trauma resulted more from the legal process, societal judgment, and family abandonment than the incident itself. A committee report confirmed that the legal and social consequences caused greater harm than the act. The Court criticized deficiencies in the legal system and societal attitudes, acknowledging the victim's emotional attachment to the accused and her desire to protect her family. Previously, the Court had set aside controversial High Court remarks on adolescent sexuality, restored the conviction, and issued guidelines on judgment writing and compliance with the POCSO Act and Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The Court directed the government to provide educational and financial support to the victim and her child, with assistance from the State Legal Services Authority. Invoking Article 142, the Court refrained from sentencing the accused due to the unique circumstances, as the victim opposed punishment to preserve her family. (Paras 23, 24) In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 617 : 2025 INSC 778
Allahabad High Court
Case title - Amarjeet Pandey vs. State Of Up And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 139
Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 139
In an order, the Allahabad High Court raised serious concerns over the growing trend of litigants manipulating their date of birth in criminal proceedings to obtain 'favourable' legal outcomes, such as being declared a juvenile.
In a strongly worded order, the Court also criticised the laxity of law enforcement agencies in conducting proper age verification as required by Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
Case title - Arjun @ Golu vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 184
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 184
The Allahabad High Court expressed its concern over a 16-year-old minor languishing in a regular jail alongside undertrial accused persons and convicts, due to the trial court's failure to decide his application claiming juvenility.
A bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed that if the trial court ultimately concludes that the applicant is a juvenile in conflict with law, the loss caused to him, having spent over a year in regular jail with undertrial prisoners and convicts, cannot be remedied by any means.
Case title - Juvenile X vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 266
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 266
The Allahabad High Court expressed its serious concerns over the 'disastrous' effects of television, internet, and social media on adolescents, observing that these mediums are causing a "loss of their innocence at a very early and tender age", and that even the government can't control their influence due to the 'uncontrollable' nature of the technologies involved.
A bench of Justice Siddharth made these observations while allowing a criminal revision filed by a juvenile challenging an order of the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the POCSO Court, Kaushambi, that he be tried as an adult in an alleged case of consensual physical relationship with a minor girl.
Case title - Mayank Ojha (Minor) Thru. Here Natural Guardian Mother Shashi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Home Secy. Lko. And 6 Others
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 376
The Allahabad High Court has observed that a writ of habeas corpus is not maintainable when the custody of a minor child has been handed over pursuant to a judicial order passed by the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
A Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi observed thus while dismissing a habeas corpus petition filed by a mother seeking custody of her 11-year-old son claiming that she is her natural guardian.
Case Title: Pawan Kumar (Corpus) And Another v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others [HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 497 of 2025]
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 416
The Allahabad High Court has held that under the Juvenile Justice Act 2015 a person accused who claims to be child at time of commission of offence, cannot be sent to jail or police lockup even during an inquiry regarding determination of his age either by a Court or the Juvenile Justice Board
In doing so the court held that a child in conflict with law or alleged to be in conflict with law cannot be lodged in jail till they attain 21 years of age.
Case title - Rishi Pal And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 427
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a Child Welfare Committee (CWC) constituted under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has no power to direct the police to register a First Information Report (FIR).
The bench added that the CWC can only forward a report to the Juvenile Justice Board or to the concerned police authority if it finds a violation of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.
Case title - Rishi Pal And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 427
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a Child Welfare Committee (CWC) constituted under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has no power to direct the police to register a First Information Report (FIR).
The bench added that the CWC can only forward a report to the Juvenile Justice Board or to the concerned police authority if it finds a violation of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006.
Case Title: Pundarikaksh Dev Pathak Versus Union of India and 3 others [WRIT - A No. - 9462 of 2025]
Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 429
Placing reliance on erstwhile Section 19 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 which is almost identical to Section 24 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the Allahabad High Court has held that juvenile's conviction under the Act is not to be treated as disqualification for appointment in services.
Section 19 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, a juvenile who has committed an offence and has been dealt with under the provisions of this Act shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law.
Case title - Seema Beg vs. State of U.P. and Another
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 445
The Allahabad High Court quashed the charge-sheet, cognizance order and the entire proceedings against the wife of sitting Samajwadi Party MLA who was facing allegations of human trafficking and was also booked under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 as well as the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976.
A bench of Justice Sameer Jain granted relief to MLA Zaid Beg's wife, Seema Beg, as it observed that even if the prosecution material is taken at its face value, no prima facie case was made out under any of the invoked provisions.
Case title - Rohini and another vs. State of U.P. and 4 others
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 528
The Allahabad High Court has held that a mere School Transfer Certificate (TC) or an entry in an admission register of the school does not satisfy the requirement of a "date of birth certificate from the school" under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
A Bench of Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Zafeer Ahmad observed thus while allowing a Habeas Corpus writ petition, effectively ruling that such a plea is maintainable if the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) acts without jurisdiction by ordering the detention of a person in a protection home based solely on unverified school records.
Bombay High Court
Case Title: Abdulkadir Lokhandwala vs Central Adoption Resource Authority
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 295
The Bombay High Court has held that there is no provision under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 or the Adoption Regulations, 2022, that permits the adoption of a foreign national child by Indian relatives, unless the child is in need of care and protection or is a child in conflict with law. A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Dr Neela Gokhale dismissed a writ petition filed by an Indian couple seeking permission to adopt their biological nephew, a four-year-old US citizen, who had been brought to India and was residing with them.
Calcutta High Court
Juvenile Accused Can Seek Anticipatory Bail U/S 438 CrPC: Calcutta High Court
Case: Suhana Khatun and Others Vs. The State of West Bengal
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Cal) 254
The Calcutta High Court has held that an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC is maintainable even when filed by a juvenile/child in conflict with law.
The Court concluded that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (“JJ Act”) does not exclude the operation of pre-arrest bail provisions, and that denying such access would violate the child's fundamental right to personal liberty.
Chhattisgarh High Court
Case Title: Prahlad Prasad Rathour v State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Chh) 102
The Chhattisgarh High Court has quashed the termination of a retired Indian Navy officer from the post of Food Inspector (post reserved for Ex.Serviceman), holding that his removal on the ground of alleged concealment of childhood criminal cases was arbitrary.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru referred to Section 2(13) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 which defines “child in conflict with law” as a child who has not completed eighteen years of age and is alleged or found to have committed an offence; and Section 24(1) which removes all disqualifications attached to conviction or criminal proceedings against a CCL. In light of these provisions, the Division Bench held,
“Section 24 of the Act of 2015 has been incorporated in order to give a CCL an opportunity to lead his life with no stigma and to wipe out the circumstances of his past. It thus provides that a CCL shall not suffer any disqualification attaching to conviction of an offence under such Act. A “CCL” on the date when the alleged offence has been committed is required to be dealt with under the Act, 2015 which declares that all criminal charges against individuals who are described as “CCL” be decided by the authorities constituted under the Act by the JJ Board. If a conviction is recorded by the JJ Board. Section 24(1) of the Act of 2015 specifically stipulates that CCL shall not suffer any disqualification attached to the conviction of an offence under such law. Further Section 24(2) of the Act of 2015 contemplates that the Board must pass an order directing all the relevant records of such conviction to be removed after expiry of the period of appeal or reasons as prescribed under the rules as the case may be.”
In light of the above explanation, the Court held,
“… considering that the appellant was a CCL at the time of the alleged offences, he is entitled to the benefit of Section 24(1) of the Act 2015, which removes all disqualifications attached to a conviction or criminal proceeding against a CCL. appellant's unblemished record of fifteen years in the Indian Navy, where his conduct was rated as “Exemplary” and “Very Good,” further reinforces his integrity and suitability for public service. The action of the respondents in terminating him without affording any opportunity of hearing is violative of the principles of natural justice and fails the test of fairness under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”
Delhi High Court
Title: CCL 'K' v. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 263
The Delhi High Court has ruled that the trial proceedings of a child alleged to be in conflict with law and an adult offender cannot be held jointly after a preliminary assessment of Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) is done declaring the child in conflict with law to be psychologically and physically mature.
Title: MOHD. MUNIB v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANR.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 307
The Delhi High Court has ruled that a complainant has no right to be heard at every stage of bail proceedings under the Juvenile Justice Act.
“The involvement of the complainant remains a matter of judicial discretion rather than an enforceable entitlement, and the fundamental principle of juvenile justice i.e., "rehabilitation over retribution" must remain paramount in any such determination,” Justice Chandra Dhari Singh said.
Delhi High Court Grants 90 Days Interim Bail To Woman Booked Under POCSO Act To Care For Her Newborn
Case title: Kushi v. State NCT of Delhi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 714
The Delhi High Court has ordered an interim release of a woman, languishing in jail for about six months in connection with a POCSO case, to enable her to take care of her new born child.
The woman was arrested on December 12 last year. She was expecting at the time and delivered a boy child in custody, on May 12.
Meanwhile, chargesheet came to be filed against her alleging offences under Sections 363/366/370/376/354A IPC, Sections 4/6 of the POCSO Act and Section 81 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
Gujarat High Court
Case title: X v/s State of Gujarat and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Guj) 147
The Gujarat High Court refused to quash the FIR against a woman advocate booked for disclosing the name of a POCSO victim by giving a media bite, stating that she behaved "absolutely irresponsibly as a professional as well as a human".
Justice Nirzar Desai in his order further observed that what was more glaring is that the applicant could not protect the "dignity, reputation, and privacy of a minor victim of an offence under the POCSO Act", despite being a woman and, "prima facie appears to have placed her professional interests and publicity above and ahead the interest of the minor victim".
"The question is not about pardoning the mistake of the present applicant. The question is, when a professional, merely to extract publicity, crosses the line drawn by law, whether such an act can be considered as an inadvertent mistake or not. The present applicant, as it prima facie appears, has not only disclosed the name of the victim girl while giving a media bite on social media but also, when the victim girl was accompanying her, influenced the victim girl to give a media bite on social media. Therefore, a thorough investigation into the offence in question is required, as the provisions of the Act are intended to protect the privacy and modesty of a victim of an offence under the POCSO Act or the Juvenile Justice Act".
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Name: V (a juvenile) v/s State of H.P.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (HP) 118
In the alleged rape of a 7 year old girl by a 16 year old boy, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that preliminary assessment conducted by the Medical Board in accordance with Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Care and Protection of Children Act, 2015 found that that the accused had an IQ of 92 and was fully aware of the consequences of his acts as he had threatened the victim and told her to not disclose the incident to anyone.
Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that “ the Medical Board was to assess the mental capacity of petitioner, which it had assessed and found the petitioner's IQ to be 92; therefore, the mere fact that the documents were not forwarded to the Medical Board cannot lead to an interference that the report issues by the Medical Board was bad."
Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
Case Title: Oasis Girls School Vs XXX
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 332
Holding that a Child Welfare Committee (CWC) has no statutory authority to recommend punitive or legal action against educational institutions, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh set aside an order passed by the Child Welfare Committee, Srinagar, which had recommended action against a private school for allegedly expelling a minor student.
Kerala High Court
Case Title: XX v The State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 63
The Kerala High Court held that the Children's Court has to conduct an inquiry as to whether a child can be tried as an adult even if the Juvenile Justice Board (Board) has already passed an order saying that the child can be tried so.
The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M. B. Snehalatha said that it is clear from the decision in Child in Conflict with law through his mother v State of Karnataka (2024) that it is mandatory that the Children's Court should conduct an inquiry to decide if the child deserves to be treated as an adult.
Case Title: Lijo Stephen Chacko v Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 97
The Kerala High Court ruled that prospective adoptive parents must be given child study report and medical examination report to review when they are referred the profiles of children for possible adoption.
Justice C.S. Dias referred to Section 59 (6) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act of 2015 and Adoption Regulations of 2022 to state that child study report and medical examination report of children who are legally free for adoption must be uploaded on the Child Adoption Resource Information and Guidance System (CARINGS) platform which is the designated portal of the Central Adoption Resource Agency.
Case Title: Sidhique Chundakkadan v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 151
The Kerala High Court recently held that to constitute the offence of wilful neglect as given under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, the act should be done deliberately or intentionally and not by accident or inadvertence.
In the instant case, the prosecution alleged that a 6-year-old child who was residing in the Home For Mentally Deficient Children was assaulted and killed by 4 other inmates for urinating while sleeping. It was found out that one of the inmates who attacked the child was a major. Apart from him, 3 other inmates who had attained majority were staying in the institution. It is alleged that the Multi Task Providers of the institution and the petitioner, who was superintendent of the said home, violated specific instructions by allowing major inmates to stay with minors.
Justice C. Jayachandran observed that even if the petitioner had actual charge and control over the deceased, it could not be said that there was 'willful neglect' as given under the provision.
Case Title: Soorya Kiran And Another v State of Kerala And Others & Connected Cases
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 251
The Kerala High Court on Friday (25th April) denied bail to the 5 juveniles who are apprehended for being involved in the murder of 15-year-old Shahabas, a class 10 student who was allegedly attacked by his tuition fellows in Kozhikkode which lead to his death.
"Considering the above aspects, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners" Justice Jobin Sebastian ordered.
Kerala High Court Grants Bail To 6 Juveniles Over Alleged Involvement In Shahabas Murder Case
Case Title: XX and Others v State of Kerala and Another & Connected Case
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 332
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (11th June) granted bail to 6 juveniles who were allegedly involved in the murder of 15-year-old Shahabas, a class 10 student. The order was pronounced by Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas.
The Court observed that the Juvenile Justice Act does not allow the continued stay of the juveniles in the observation home.
Case Title: XXX v State of Kerala and batch
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 398
The Kerala High Court has observed that caning of students by teachers or corporal punishment would not constitute an offence under the BNS and Juvenile Justice Act, (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015, as the statutes stand now.
The Court however underscored that it is not excluding a case where any "corporal punishment is inflicted on any vital part" of child's body, nor was it excluding any "sadistic tendencies" exhibited by the teachers. Justice C. Jayachandran said that these would be exceptional situations which would constitute an offence.
Case Title: XXX v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 Livelaw (Ker) 593
The Kerala High Court recently directed the state government, the Director General of Police and the Station House Officers (SHO) to erase all police records and details before the Juvenile Justice Board in a case where a minor was the accused.
Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen was considering a plea by a man for erasure of all records relating to the case in which he was arrayed as the 5th accused when he was a minor and was subsequently acquitted.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title: In Reference Vs. Memo No.454/2024 Bhopal Dated 23/11/2024
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 110
While hearing a matter concerning juvenile accused of offences under the Explosives Substances Act and the UAPA, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the non-obstante clause of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 will override the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008.
Considering the effect of the non-obstante clause, the Court held that the juvenile in conflict with law shall be tried by the Children's Court and not by Special Judge under the NIA Act.
Madras High Court
Merely Submitting Adoption Plea Wouldn't Confer Any Rights To Unilaterally Take Child's Custody Without Following Procedure: Madras HC
Case Title: X v. The Chairperson and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 15
The Madras High Court has observed that merely submitting an application seeking adoption of a child would not confer any rights on the parties concerned to take custody of the child unilaterally without "scrupulously" following the due procedure.
A division bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice M Jothiraman noted that the procedures contemplated under the relevant statutes have to be scrupulously followed and the committee constituted must assess the couple, including their mindset, capacity, family setup etc.
Case Title: Kajendran J v. Superintendent of Police and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 53
The Madras High Court has asked the courts across the state of Tamil Nadu not to insist on conducting potency tests on accused persons in a routine manner. The court also directed the Director General of Police to issue circulars to the departments asking the officers to refrain from sending the accused for potency test in a mechanical manner.
The bench of Justice Anand Venkatesh and Justice Sunder Mohan, which was constituted to monitor the implementation of provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Juvenile Justice Act on the judicial side, made the observations after being informed that while there was awareness against Two-Finger tests in the state, instances of male potency tests still continued.
The bench also noted that despite previous orders and a circular issued by the DGP, minor boys who were involved in romantic relationships with minor girls were mechanically arrested and produced before the Juvenile Justice Boards, which then sent the minor boys to the observation homes. The court noted that such procedure ran counter to the earlier circulars and the orders of the court and thus directed the DGP to re-familiarise the police officials regarding the circular, making them aware of the procedure to be followed in such cases.
Madras High Court Asks Transgender Woman To Approach Union Govt Against Denial Of Adoption
Case Title: K Prithika Yashini (Transgender) v. Union of India and Others
Citation: 2025 Livelaw (Mad) 338
The Madras High Court has closed the plea filed by Transgender Sub Inspector Priyanka Yashini against an order of the Central Adoption Resource Authority, rejecting her prospective adoptive parent application.
While disposing of the plea, Justice M Dhandapani noted that unless amendments were made to the Adoption Regulations, a direction could not be issued to CARA to consider the petitioner's application. The court thus directed the petitioner to make an application to the Union Ministry of Women and Child Development, asking them to amend Regulation 5, thus enabling a transgender person to adopt from the CARA agency.
Madras High Court Upholds Life Sentence Of Man Who Sexually Abused, Impregnated Daughter's Friend
Case Title: Murugesan @ Murugesh v. The State and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 358
The Madras High Court has upheld the conviction and sentence imposed on a man for sexually assaulting and impregnating his daughter's friend, who was a minor and belonged to the Scheduled Caste community.
The bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice V Lakshminarayanan remarked that the case was yet another example of how children from the vulnerable sections of society were placed in unfortunate positions.
Case Title: K Heerajohn v. The District Registrar and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 365
The Madras High Court recently said that the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act would prevail over the muslim personal laws, and an adopted child will have the same status as that of a biological child.
Justice GR Swaminathan also highlighted administrative delays in adoption procedures and said that such delays deprive the child of the formative experiences and opportunities that could alter their life's trajectory. The court thus highlighted that the authorities under the Juvenile Justice Act are obliged to speed up the adoption process.
Case Title: A Kannan v. The Union Territory of Puducherry and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 383
The Madras High Court recently held that in case of adoption of an unmarried woman's child, an adoption deed executed by the grandparents would be valid, when it is shown that the mother had concurred to such adoption.
Justice Dhandapani highlighted that the concept of adoption is to facilitate the permanent care and protection of the child. The court added that so long as the interests of the child are met, the authorities should not focus on the intricacies of the process, hampering the welfare of the child.
Orissa High Court
Case Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 27
The Orissa High Court heavily criticized a Special Court under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act ('POCSO Act') for treating an accused as 'juvenile' and referring the case to Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) despite having enough materials to suggest that the last act in the 'continuing offence' was committed by the accused much after he attained majority. While reprimanding the senior judicial officer (in the cadre of District Judge) for such procedural error, the Single Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi observed –
“The notion that proceedings should commence under juvenile jurisdiction simply because the accused was a minor at the inception of a continuing offence is a proposition so untenable, so discordant with established legal doctrine, that it raises profound concerns, not merely about the fairness and reliability of the adjudication, but about the very competence of the judge who rendered it.”
Case Title: Ramesh Chandra Sethi v. State of Orissa
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 42
The Orissa High Court reiterated that 'corporal punishment' by a school teacher upon a student for the purpose of disciplining him cannot amount to an offence under Section 82 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 ('the Act'). However, the Single Bench of Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra acknowledged the grief of the parents for loss of life of their child and directed the petitioner-teacher to pay a compensation amount of ₹1 lakh to the deceased's family.
Patna High Court
Case Title: Rakesh Rai vs The State of Bihar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 11
The Patna High Court has reiterated that the involvement of a juvenile in an offense of serious nature is not, by itself, a ground for denying bail under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015.
It thus overturned the order of the Children Court, which had rejected the bail petition of the appellant on the grounds that he was involved in a murder case, had bad company, and that his release would expose him to criminal influences and defeat the ends of justice.
Case Title: Biswajit Kumar Pandey @ Lalu Kumar v. The State of Bihar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 16
The Patna High Court has held that institutionalization should be a measure of last resort and that the family is the primary institution for the rehabilitation and reintegration of a child in conflict with the law. It thus set aside the rejection of bail for a juvenile accused in a murder case, ruling that the juvenile justice system is reformatory, not punitive.
Justice Jitendra Kumar, while delivering the judgment, stated, “Reformatory or Observation Home is one of the measures contemplated by our legislature for reforming and rehabilitating the delinquent children. However, the family of the child in conflict with law has been considered by the legislature as the best and first desirable institution to achieve the object of the Act. Hence, the primary responsibility of care and protection of the child has been given to the biological family or adoptive or foster parents of the child, and it has been contemplated that every child in conflict with law has the right to be reunited with his family at the earliest. Institutionalization of a juvenile in conflict with law has been contemplated as the last resort.”
Case Title: X v. The State of Bihar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 32
While granting bail to a child alleged to be in conflict with law (CICL), the Patna High Court referred to Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act 2015 to underscore that bail to a juvenile is a rule and refusal of bail is an exception.
In doing so Justice Jitendra Kumar held that bail to a juvenile in conflict with law can only be denied in certain circumstances including if on bail the juvenile person may come into contact with a known criminal, or if the juvenile may be exposed to physical, psychological danger. It thus reiterated that the purpose of the Act which is that children even if they get into some conflict must be reformed and not punished, as a punitive approach towards children in conflict with law would be self-destructive for the society.
Case Title: X v. The State of Bihar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 52
The Patna High Court has set aside the conviction and sentence of a juvenile under the Arms Act, holding that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 is based on the belief that children are the future of society and, if they go into conflict with law under some circumstances, they should be reformed and not punished.
Justice Jitendra Kumar observed, “the J.J. Act, 2000 is based on our belief that children are the future of the society and in case they go into conflict with law under some circumstances, they should be reformed and rehabilitated and not punished. No society can afford to punish its children. Punitive approach towards children in conflict with law would be self-destructive for the society. Such belief and object are reflected in the preamble to the Act as well as its provisions.”
Case Title: X v. The State of Bihar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 58
The Patna High Court has set aside the conviction of a juvenile-in-conflict-with law for raping a minor girl, while simultaneously directing the Bihar State Legal Services Authority to pay compensation to the survivor. The Juvenile Justice Board had convicted the juvenile in 2019 for rape and he was directed to be kept in a Special Home for two years; this was also upheld by the appellate court against which the juvenile moved the high court in appeal.
Further noting significant procedural lapses, lack of evidence, and non-consideration of the Social Investigation Report (SIR) submitted by the Probation Officer, Justice Jitendra Kumar in his order also emphasized that the Juvenile Justice Act and Rules provide that while taking any decisions with reference to any juvenile in conflict with law, the "best interest of the juvenile" must be the "primary consideration". It noted that the SIR on the juvenile contains no criminal antecedent.
Case Title: X v. The State of Bihar & Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 65
The Patna High Court granted bail to a juvenile accused of sexually assaulting a minor girl, observing that Section 12 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 does not provide any classification on grant of bail and the provision applies to all children-in-conflict with law without any discrimination.
Justice Jitendra Kumar further observed that the even juveniles who are above 16-years-old accused of committing a “heinous offence” are also entitled to bail.
Prosecution Must Prove Victim's Age U/S 94 Juvenile Justice Act For POCSO To Apply: Patna High Court
Case Title: XXX v. State of Bihar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 88
The Patna High Court recently held that in prosecutions under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, the age of the victim must be conclusively established either through school records or medical evidence, as required under Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
Justice Alok Kumar Pandey made these observations while hearing a criminal appeal arising from an acquittal order passed by the Trial Court, which had acquitted the accused of offences under the Indian Penal Code and the POCSO Act.
Pendency Of Multiple Cases Does Not Make Juvenile Incorrigible For Reform: Patna High Court
Case Title: Banti Kumar @ Aryan Raj v. State of Bihar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 92
The Patna High Court recently ruled that the mere pendency of cases is insufficient to label a juvenile as incorrigible or unfit for reformation.
A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Arun Kumar Jha made these remarks when hearing a criminal revision petition challenging the order of the trial court, which had affirmed the Juvenile Justice Board's refusal to grant bail to the petitioner.
Punjab and Haryana High Court
Title: XXXXX v. XXXXX [CRR-1165-2025]
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 307
In a significant observation against stereotyping marginalized communities, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that it is arbitrary to assume that individuals living in slum areas are more likely to come into contact with criminals.
The Court made the observation while granting bail to a Child In Conflict With Law (CICL) in an NDPS Act case involving 39.7 kg Ganja- commercial quantity, wherein, out of the maximum sentence of three years, he had spent two years in custody.
Rajasthan High Court
Title: Suresh Kumar v Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 67
“For the welfare of a child, the burden of past mistakes must be lifted, offering him a fresh start to thrive, free from the weight of stigma…shadows of past transgressions should be expunged...” said the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand at the Rajasthan High Court while directing the State to reinstate a man to the post of constable whose services were terminated for not disclosing his conviction as a juvenile.
In doing so the court held that “right to be forgotten” for a juvenile by way of destroying records of juvenile delinquency is an absolute right and has to be given full meaning by the State.
It further said that the State is lawfully restrained from seeking any information about the previous record of the juvenile delinquency in cases where the benefit of Section 19 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000 or Section 24 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 was given.
The Court held that such a disclosure would defeat the purpose of the legislation by adversely impacting the rehabilitation as well as the socio-economic stability of the juvenile pushing him/her again towards criminal delinquency.
The Court further held that even when the police verification was conducted with respect to the petitioner, the police officials should have refrained from revealing such information and failing to do so was a gross violation of confidentiality and mandatory provisions of law.
Title: Vikash Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 83
The Rajasthan High Court has called for development of mechanism in the juvenile justice system for expunging the records of minor offences committed by young persons, to enable easier rehabilitation and prevent "youthful mistakes" from becoming lifelong barriers to personal and professional growth.
In doing so Justice Arun Monga underscored that a punitive approach can permanently brand young persons as criminals for minor mistakes that they may have committed. It thus also reiterated that a mere registration of an FIR does not reduce a citizen to the status of either a convict or of a bad character. The court made the observation in a candidate's plea who was denied appointment in the police, since he had a criminal case as a juvenile even though he was acquitted.
Title: Kailash v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 222
The Rajasthan High Court held that a conviction which had been recorded cannot be held to be vitiated in law merely because the inquiry into the juvenility of the accused was not conducted by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB). It is only the question of sentence for which the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act, 2015 would be attracted
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand ruled that a recorded conviction could not be held to be vitiated in law merely because the inquiry was not conducted by the Juvenile Justice Board as required under Section 25 of the
“Otherwise, the accused who has committed a heinous offence and who did not claim juvenility before the Trial Court would be allowed to go scot free… The object under the JJ Act, 2015 dealing with the rights and liberties of the juvenile is only to ensure that he or she could be brought into the main stream by awarding lesser sentence and also directing for other facilities for welfare of the juvenile, in conflict with law, during his/her stay in any of the institutions defined under the JJ Act, 2015,” the court said.
Title: Bipul Kumar v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 246
The Rajasthan High Court upheld denial of bail to a juvenile charged with the allegations of “brutally” murdering a person along with the co-accused, on grounds of gravity of the offence, his direct involvement and absence of compelling reasons to grant bail.
Underscoring the awareness of Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 (the “Act”), the bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Garg observed that under provisions of BNSS, the gravity of offence significantly influenced the court's decision to grant or deny bail.
After hearing the contentions, the Court highlighted that the release of a juvenile was preferred unless there existed a belief that such release might associate the juvenile with known criminals or expose him to moral, physical or psychological harm, or otherwise such release might frustrate the objective of justice.
Title: X v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 299
Rajasthan High Court held that while undertaking an enquiry in relation to claim of juvenility of an accused, the standard need not be like a trial where the juvenility had to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts, rather if two views are possible, the Court should lean towards holding in favour of the accused to be juvenile in borderline cases.
The bench of Justice Sandeep Shah further clarified that if the documentary evidence mentioned in Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (“the Act”) were placed on record, they were to be considered relevant unless those were shown to be fabricated or manipulated.
“…if so called documents are available, then there is no requirement for the Court, the board or the committee to go for medical test for age determination. The question is thus answered accordingly.”
Title: A v/s State of Rajasthan & Anr and connected petition
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 361
The Rajasthan High Court set aside an appellate court's order remitting a POCSO case lodged against two juveniles to the Children's Court for conducting a trial against them as "adult accused". In doing so the court said that offence alleged against the petitioners do not fall in the category of "heinous offences" under the Juvenile Justice Act 2015 as none of the offences alleged carried a minimum sentence 7 years or more.
The court said that the JJ Act has not classified or defined the offences for which punishment under any statute is imprisonment for more than 07 years, but no mandatory minimum punishment of imprisonment for 07 years or more has been prescribed.
It further said that “heinous offences" defined under Section 2(33) cannot be interpreted in a way, which may be less beneficial for the child, who is alleged to have committed an offence falling between the category of “serious offences‟ and “heinous offences‟. This was because the JJ Act treats all children below 18 years equally except in the age group of 16-18 years, who has committed “heinous offences".
Telangana High Court
X vs. State of Telangana
2025 LiveLaw (Tel) 59
The Telangana High Court has reiterated when determining whether a child-in-conflict with law should be tried as an adult, the Children's Court/Sessions Court cannot brush aside its duty of independent assessment by simply relying on the assessment report by the Board under Section 15 of the Act.
The court underscored that the children's court has the "mandatory duty to make an independent assessment" about the necessity of trying the child as an adult.
Tripura High Court
Case Title: "X" Vs. The State of Tripura
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Trip) 5
The Tripura High Court recently affirmed the Child in Conflict with Law (CCL's) right to access preliminary assessment reports and related documents referenced by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) while deciding whether the CCL should be tried as an adult under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Act.
A bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh set aside the Children's Court's order, which had affirmed the Juvenile Justice Board's (JJB) decision to try the appellant-CCL as an adult. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision of Barun Chandra Thakur vs. Master Bholu and another, the High Court ruled that the CCL was denied a reasonable opportunity to present a defence, as crucial reports informing the JJB's decision were withheld from the Appellant.