Delhi High Court Rules Against Joint Trials for Juveniles Tried as Adults

The Delhi High Court, in CRL.REV.P. 436/2022 , recently delivered a significant judgment clarifying the application of Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act). The court ruled that even when a juvenile is tried as an adult under the JJ Act, their trial must be separate from that of any adult co-accused. This decision, pronounced on March 3, 2025, by Justice Anish Dayal , has significant implications for the prosecution of cases involving both juveniles and adults.

Case Background

The case involved a juvenile, referred to as ' CCL K ,' and an adult co-accused, Mr. Vivek Kumar , charged with murder (Section 302 IPC) and other offences following an incident at a school in September 2016. After a preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the JJ Act, the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB ) determined that CCL K should be tried as an adult. However, the trial court subsequently allowed a joint trial with the adult co-accused. CCL K challenged this decision, leading to the High Court's intervention.

Arguments Presented

The petitioner argued that Section 23 of the JJ Act, which prohibits joint proceedings of a child in conflict with law and a person who is not a child, unequivocally prevents joint trials, regardless of whether the juvenile is tried as an adult. They emphasized that the phrase "tried as an adult" does not equate to "tried with an adult," and that a joint trial fundamentally violates the child's rights and the principles of child-friendly justice enshrined in the JJ Act. The petitioner cited several precedents supporting their interpretation of Section 23 as a mandatory bar to joint proceedings.

The State, conversely, argued that the JJ Act's intent is to distinguish between juveniles and adults, allowing for exceptions where juveniles, after assessment, are deemed suitable for trial as adults. They contended that Section 23(1) prevents joint trials only for juveniles not designated for adult trials, while Section 23(2) addresses the situation where a juvenile, during proceedings, is found not to be a child. The State suggested that trying a juvenile tried as an adult alongside an adult within the Children's Court does not violate the law.

The Court's Reasoning

The High Court meticulously dissected Section 23 of the JJ Act, highlighting its non-obstante clause overriding other laws (including Section 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), the mandatory use of "shall," and the clear distinction between a "child" and a "person who is not a child." The court emphasized the crucial difference between being "tried as an adult" and "tried with an adult." The judge noted that the latter interpretation would render Section 23 practically meaningless. The court also considered relevant precedents, including Abuzar Hossain v. State of W.B. , Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand , and Kanai Lal Sur v. Paramnidhi Sadhukhan , reinforcing the need for a child-friendly approach and the purposive interpretation of beneficial legislation.

The court further observed that the "proceedings" mentioned in Section 23 is not limited to the trial alone but encompasses all stages of the legal process. Therefore, even if the same Judge presides over both trials, the proceedings must be conducted separately.

The Decision and its Implications

The High Court allowed the revision petition, setting aside the trial court's order to the extent that the trial of CCL K must be conducted separately from that of Mr. Vivek Kumar from the point it stands. While acknowledging that a significant portion of the trial had already been conducted jointly, the court deemed it necessary to ensure compliance with Section 23 of the JJ Act for the remaining proceedings. This decision underscores the importance of upholding the rights of juveniles even when they are tried as adults, ensuring that the unique considerations of their age and developmental stage are protected. The court’s interpretation reinforces the mandate for child-friendly justice mechanisms as envisioned by the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.