Preliminary Assessment Of Mental & Physical Capacity Of Juvenile To Commit Heinous Offence Must Be Concluded Expeditiously: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that every preliminary assessment under section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act in relation to heinous offences committed by a juvenile must be initiated and concluded expeditiously in terms of section 14 of the Act.

“In case of heinous offences, the Juvenile Justice Boards are required to follow the mandate of Section 14(3) and proviso to Section 14(4) in their true spirit and dispose of the proceedings before it expeditiously and without any unnecessary and unreasonable delay,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.

The court added: “…every preliminary assessment under Section 15 of JJ Act in relation to heinous offences must be initiated and concluded expeditiously as per terms of Section 14, and as per requirements as mentioned in the JJ Act and the Rules.”

As per Section 15(1) of the Act, a Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) is required to make a preliminary assessment regarding the juvenile's mental and physical capacity to commit an offence and the ability to understand its consequences along with the circumstances under which allegedly the offence was committed.

Section 14(3) states that the preliminary assessment in case of heinous offences under section 15 shall be disposed of by the Board within three months from the date of first production of the child. 

The proviso to Section 14(4) states that for serious or heinous offences, in case the Board requires further extension of time for completion of inquiry, the same shall be granted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for reasons to be recorded in writing.

Justice Sharma held that the failure to conclude preliminary assessment within three months in cases of heinous offences under Section 15, ipso facto, does not result in lapse of proceedings or vitiation of trial and that the effect of any such delay will have to be examined in light of facts and circumstances of each case.

The court said that while the State must consider the rights of juveniles, including their entitlement to a timely preliminary assessment, it is also tasked with the responsibility of prosecuting and penalizing offenders in cases of heinous offences as such crimes have far-reaching impacts that extend beyond individuals or families to the society at large.

“Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court reaches a conclusion that the time period prescribed under Section 14 for the completion of preliminary assessment in relation to heinous offences cannot be held to be mandatory in nature, in a hyper-technical manner, so as to disregard and negate the decision arrived at by the JJ Board after the expiry of prescribed time period in every case,” the court said.

It added that absence of a provision that specifies a maximum time frame for concluding the preliminary assessment or the lapse of proceedings due to failure to complete it within the designated period should not be interpreted as allowing an “unreasonable prolongation of the preliminary assessment of a juvenile.”

“Whether the delay in conclusion of preliminary assessment by the JJ Board is reasonable or not, or whether the same has caused any prejudice to the juvenile, or whether such a delay defeats the aim and object of the legislation so as to vitiate the entire trial, or whether permission for extension of time to conclude preliminary assessment is obtained from the Court concerned, will have to be examined by the Courts in the given set of facts and circumstances of a case,” the court said.

The court passed the order while deciding a bunch of pleas moved by minors, charged with committing heinous offences, challenging the orders passed by the Children’s Court wherein directions were given to try them as adults.

Justice Sharma observed that the Children’s Court is bound to apply its mind to decide as to whether there is a need for trial of the child as an adult or not after receiving the preliminary assessment from the Juvenile Justice Board.

Observing that Children’s Court did not arrive at any independent decision of its own by applying judicial mind and recording reasons under Section 19(1) of Act, Justice Sharma remanded the matters back to such courts for passing appropriate orders as per law.

Case Title: CCL M A v. STATE (NCT) OF DELHI and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 706

Click Here To Read Order