Preliminary Assessment To Try Juvenile As Adult - JJB Should Mandatorily Take Assistance Of Psychologist/Psycho-Social Workers : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, on Wednesday, held that when the Juvenile Justice Board does not comprise a practicing professional with a degree in child psychology or child psychiatry, it would be obligated to take assistance of experienced psychologists or psychosocial workers or other experts under proviso to Section 15(1) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (Act). Initially all children below the age of 18 years were to be treated as juvenile and tried by the Board. Only after the 2015 Act came into force, a separate category for juveniles between 16 to 18 years involved in heinous crime, was culled out, who were subjected to a preliminary assessment to ascertain if they are to be tried as a child by the Board or as an adult by the Children's Court under Section 15 of the Act. As the report of the preliminary assessment decides whether the accused child would be tried as a child or an adult, the evaluation of 'mental capacity and ability to understand the consequences' of the child in conflict with law cannot be conducted in a routine manner. It requires meticulous psychological evaluation. In this context, the assistance of an expert psychologist is significant. Thus, in respect to proviso to Section 15(1), which postulated that the Board 'may' take the assistance of experienced psychologists or psycho-social workers or other experts for the said evaluation, the Court held - "...we are of the view that where the Board is not comprising of a practicing professional with a degree in child psychology or child psychiatry, the expression "may" in the proviso to section 15(1) would operate in mandatory form and the Board would be obliged to take assistance of experienced psychologists or psychosocial workers or other experts. However, in case the Board comprises of at least one such member, who has been a practicing professional with a degree in child psychology or child psychiatry, the Board may take such assistance as may be considered proper by it; and in case the Board chooses not to take such assistance, it would be required of the Board to state specific reasons therefor." In the interests of equity and justice, the Court opined, a 'may' can be given a mandatory colour by it. In this respect it referred to its judgment in Bachahan Devi v. Nagar Nigam, Gorakhpur and Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. State of U.P.Court asks NCPCR, SCPCR to issue guidelines for preliminary assessment A Bench comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath noted that the preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Act is a delicate task and appropriate and specific guidelines would be required for the same. It suggested the Central Government and the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights and the State Commission for Protection of Child Rights to consider issuing guidelines in this regard in order to facilitate the Board in making its preliminary assessment.The Court was deciding the appeals filed in related to the murder of a 7-year old student of Ryan International School, in which another student of the school is the accused. The CBI and the complainant in the case had approached the Court challenging the direction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court for conducting a fresh preliminary assessment of the juvenile accused. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the High Court order. Analysis by the Supreme Court The Court observed the three serious consequences of a child being tried as an adult are: sentence can go up to life imprisonment, whereas if tried as child before the Board, the maximum sentence that can be awarded is 3 years; disqualification attached to the conviction shall be removed as per Section 24(1) for a child tried by the Board, but the same protection would not be available to a child tried as an adult. Under Section 24(1) relevant records of conviction can be directed to be destroyed for those tried before the Board, but such benefit would not enure to a child tried as an adult. In view of the serious nature of the repercussions, the Court was of the view that reasonable opportunity ought to be provided in a case where the Board is to make a preliminary assessment under Section 15. Preliminary Assessment under Section 15 The Juvenile Justice Board is to make the preliminary assessment on four aspects - mental capacity to commit the offence; physical capacity to commit the offence; ability to understand the consequences of the offence; and circumstances under which allegedly the offence was committed. However, there are no guidelines as to how the Board would conduct the preliminary assessment. The Court was of the view that a holistic assessment would be required to ascertain whether a child should be tried as an adult or not. It noted - "While considering a child as an adult one needs to look at his/her physical maturity, cognitive abilities, social and emotional competencies. It must be mentioned here that from a...

Preliminary Assessment To Try Juvenile As Adult - JJB Should Mandatorily Take Assistance Of Psychologist/Psycho-Social Workers : Supreme Court

Sohini Chowdhury

The Court read the proviso to Section 15(1) of the JJ Act as a mandatory condition.

Tags