Back
Supreme Court: Children's Court Must Hold (i) Inquiry Before Trying Juvenile as Adult
The has firmly clarified that the inquiry mandated under (i) of the () is not an but a before a child can be tried as an adult. A bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal allowed an appeal by juvenile Ajeet Gurjar, setting aside the orders of the and the trial court, and directing the to independently assess the need for trying him as an adult.
A Teenager's Fate Hangs on a Procedural Omission
The case arose from a FIR alleging offences including murder, dacoity, and arms violations under the , the Madhya Pradesh Dakaiti Aur Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam (), and the . The , after conducting a under , transferred the case to the jurisdictional under Section 18(3). The appellant, who was a child at the time of the offence, moved the trial court seeking compliance with (i), arguing that the must hold its own inquiry to decide whether he should be tried as an adult. The trial court rejected the application and framed charges, a decision upheld by the High Court, which noted that the transfer order had attained finality and that the appellant was now 24 years old.
The Legal Framework: Two Stages of Protection
The Supreme Court dissected the statutory scheme. Under , the JJB conducts a of the child’s mental and physical capacity, ability to understand consequences, and the circumstances of the offence. Based on this, the Board may order transfer to the under Section 18(3). However, then vests the with the power to decide, after receiving the , whether there is a need for trial as an adult. Critically, (ii) empowers the court to conduct an inquiry itself and pass orders under Section 18 if it finds no need for .
Supreme Court's Verdict: Inquiry Is Not a Formality
Rejecting the High Court’s reasoning, the apex court held that the order under Section 18(3) is based only on a
and is not final.
"The observation of the High Court that the order passed under sub-section (3) of Section 18 has attained finality completely ignores that the order under sub-section (3) of Section 18 is not a
on the question of trying the child as an adult,"
the Court stated. Emphasizing the mandatory nature of the inquiry, the judgment noted:
"Therefore, holding an inquiry in terms of clause (i) of sub-section 1 of Section 19 is not an
. The reason is that if the Children's Court comes to the conclusion that there is no need to try the child as an adult, he will be entitled to be treated differently in the sense that action can be taken against him only in terms of Section 18 of the
."
The Way Forward: Compliance and Potential Transfer
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned orders and directed the (which is also a under the ) to comply with of the expeditiously, having regard to . Additionally, noting that the has a under the which can also act as a , the Court directed the Sessions Judge to administratively transfer the case to that court if it is not overburdened.
Impact: Reaffirming the
This decision reinforces that the under the —first a by the Board, then a final determination by the —is a for juveniles accused of . The , in a subsequent judgment, has already applied this principle to set aside a conviction where the trial court failed to conduct an independent Section 19 inquiry. The ruling ensures that a child’s fate is not sealed by a preliminary board assessment alone, and that the must bring its own to bear on the question of .
