The Supreme Court has issued guidelines as to what factors should be considered by the Juvenile Justice Board while conducting preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan issued these guidelines while dismissing an appeal challenging the Patna High Court's ruling which upheld the Appellate Court's order that set aside the Juvenile Justice Board finding that the appellant be tried as an adult.

The case arose from an alleged murder of a boy in Bihar in May 2022. The appellant, who was 16 years and four months old at the time of the incident, was accused of slitting the victim's throat with a knife. The appellant was apprehended while he was attempting to flee. While the Juvenile Justice Board held that he lacked mental and physical capacity to commit the offence and decided to try him as a juvenile, the Sessions Court set aside the order and directed that the juvenile be tried as an adult on an appeal filed by the complainant. The Patna High Court affirmed that ruling.

Section 15 of the JJ Act deals with the Juvenile Justice Board's mandate to conduct a preliminary assessment when a heinous offence (attracting minimum punishment of seven years) is alleged to have been committed by a juvenile who is above the age of sixteen years. The preliminary assessment ascertains whether to try the juvenile as an adult by assessing his mental and physical capacity to commit the alleged offence, ability to understand its consequences, and the circumstances in which it is allegedly committed.

Parameters to be considered:

The Court held that the Juvenile Justice Board must apply its mind to all the materials available before it independently. It stated that the four parameters laid down under Section 15 of the JJ Act are distinct and must be considered independently and collectively.

In order to prevent the preliminary assessment from becoming a mini-trial, the bench emphasised that the right to fair trial and the principle of presumption of innocence under the JJ Act must be balanced and no inference should be made regarding the guilt or the innocence of the accused while conducting the assessment.

The factors to be considered while determining physical and mental capacity were discussed in detail by the Court. Referring to the “mental capacity” of a child as his ability to make social decisions and judgments, the bench extended it to include “a range of cognitive abilities, developmental disability, comprehension, decision-making and reasoning, more particularly, the child's understanding of conflict and his understanding of the consequences of his actions.”

The ambit of “physical capacity” has also been widened. “Physical capacity would not be restricted to locomotor abilities of the child. It would be assessed having regard to the nature of the act involved in the alleged offence. The assessment would constitute examination of whether the child, given his age, and physical development was physically capable of committing the offence in the manner alleged,” the bench observed.

The Court relied heavily on its earlier decision in Barun Chandra Thakur v Bholu to explain that “consequences” under Section 15 must be read expansively, covering psychological and long-term effects on the victim, the child, and both families, and not just the immediate physical harm. It noted that a child's intellectual awareness of risk does not necessarily translate into an ability to control impulsive behaviour, considering the role peer influence and emotional impulse play at that age.

Expert opinion cannot be the sole criteria:

In the present case, the Juvenile Justice Board had based its conclusion solely on expert opinion obtained under Section 15(1) of the JJ Act. Issuing the guidelines, the bench called such a finding an error.

“The majority opinion of the JJ Board makes no mention whatsoever of the SIR or the SBR. It erred in failing to consider the SIR and the SBR, more particularly, the antecedents and recommendations made by the Probation Officer and the CWPO, respectively. underscore or rather emphasize that the SIR and the SBR reports are not supplementary material, they constitute pertinent inputs for the preliminary assessment and must be accorded due weight alongside the expert opinion.”, it was observed.

Barun Chandra Thakur v Bholu dealt with the significance of an expert's assistance while conducting preliminary assessment and the circumstances under which their assistance would be rendered necessary. The bench, however, held that expert opinion could not be the sole consideration in the Board's decision.

The bench referred to Gujarat High Court's ruling in Child in Conflict with Law v State of Gujarat which listed eleven additional factors to be considered other than the Social Investigation Report and the Social Background Report. It includes antecedents of the child, his school records and education amongst other factors.

Board's decision to be a reasoned decision:

The bench made it mandatory for the Juvenile Justice Board to contain a reasoned decision on whether the juvenile be tried as an adult and its reasons for accepting or rejecting the observations and recommendations contained in the Social Investigation Report and Social Background Report.

“It must assess all the material together, keeping in mind the four parameters stipulated under Section 15 of the JJ Act.”, it concluded.

Reiteration was also placed on the significance of Rule 10A of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016 which provides guidance to the Juvenile Justice Board on preliminary assessment. Rule 10A authorises the Board to take assistance of psychologists and psychosocial workers experienced in working with children in difficult circumstances. It makes it mandatory for the Board to assign reasons if it concludes that the juvenile be tried as an adult. “This requirement is not a mere procedural formality. It acts as a safeguard that ensures the decision of the Board is capable of judicial scrutiny,” the bench observed.

Headnote

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015; Section 2(33) and Section 2(54) — Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 302 — Classification of Offences — Whether Murder is a "Heinous Offence" or "Serious Offence" for Juveniles - An offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC (now Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) which prescribes the punishment of "death or imprisonment for life" carries life imprisonment as its minimum statutory punishment - A court convicting an accused under Section 302 IPC has no discretion to impose any lesser sentence than imprisonment for life - The disjunctive word "or" merely confers discretion to choose between death and life imprisonment based on gravity, but does not permit a sentence below life imprisonment - Section 302 IPC qualifies as a "heinous offence" under Section 2(33) of the JJ Act since its minimum punishment is seven years or more. It cannot be classified as a "serious offence" under the fourth category of offences wrapped into Section 2(54)(b) by the 2021 Amendment - The modulation of life imprisonment under Section 21 of the JJ Act (prohibiting life imprisonment without the possibility of release for juveniles) applies only at the stage of sentencing and does not alter the statutory classification of the offence for determining the forum of trial. [Relied on Babasaheb Maruti Kamble v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 13 SCC 631; Distinguished from Shilpa Mittal v. State (NCT) of Delhi, (2020) 2 SCC 787; Paras 31, 32, 33, 36, 39, 40, 41, and 85(i)]

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015; Section 101(2) vs Section 15(1) Proviso — Nature of Appellate Power — Whether the word “May” is Mandatory or Directory - The expression "may" used in Section 101(2) of the JJ Act, which states that the Sessions Court may take the assistance of experienced psychologists and medical specialists while deciding an appeal against a preliminary assessment order, is directory/permissive and not mandatory - The rule laid down in Barun Chandra Thakur—interpreting "may" as mandatory under the proviso to Section 15(1) when the Juvenile Justice Board lacks an expert member cannot be mechanically transplanted to appellate proceedings under Section 101(2) - The Sessions Court as an appellate court stands on a completely different footing; its object is to examine the legality and correctness of the Board's order based on the existing record (including any expert reports already obtained) - While the Sessions Court has the independent power and discretion to seek fresh expert assistance if the facts and circumstances necessitate it, it is not legally mandated to do so in every single appeal. [Relied On State of U.P. v. Babu Ram Upadhya, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 5; Julius v. Lord Bishop of Oxford, (1880) 5 App Cas 214; Official Liquidator v. Dharti Dhan (P) Ltd., (1977) 2 SCC 166; Paras 46-59, and 85(ii)]

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015; Section 15 — Juvenile Justice Model Rules, 2016; Rules 8(5), 10(5), 10(9), 11(2) — Preliminary Assessment Protocol — Materials to be Considered by the Board - The sole purpose of a preliminary assessment under Section 15 is to evaluate a child above 16 years across four distinct parameters: (i) mental capacity, (ii) physical capacity, (iii) ability to understand consequences, and (iv) the circumstances of the alleged offence - The process is not an adjudication of guilt or innocence - While carrying out this assessment, the Juvenile Justice Board is not bound by the sole opinion or recommendation of the expert psychologist - The Board must apply its mind independently to the totality of the circumstances - The Social Investigation Report (SIR) and the Social Background Report (SBR) are not merely supplementary inputs; they are mandatory statutory considerations that must be evaluated alongside witness statements and expert reports - The Board cannot abdicate its judicial duty by mechanically rubber-stamping the expert's conclusion. [Relied On Pradeep Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8251; Child in Conflict with Law v. State of Gujarat, 2023 SCC OnLine Guj 3119; Paras 64-79, 82, 84, and 85(iii)]

Case Title: X v. State of Bihar & Anr.

Coram: Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 702

Appearances:

For appellant : Mr. Kailas Bajirao Autade, Advocate

For State : Mr. Samir Ali Khan, Advocate

For Victim : Mr. Prashant Bhardwaj, Advocate

Click Here To Read/Download Order