21 May 2025 Legal Updates

JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD HAS NO POWER TO REVIEW ITS ORDERS: SUPREME COURT

(a) Title:

• Rajni v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

(b) Court:

• Supreme Court of India

(c) Date of Decision:

• May 20, 2025

(d) Bench:

• Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Key Facts

This judgment addressed two connected criminal appeals concerning the determination of juvenility and the grant of bail to a juvenile in conflict with law accused of murder. The appellant (Rajni) is the mother of the deceased victim, and Respondent No. 2 is the accused who claimed to be a juvenile at the time of the alleged crime.

The case involved a heinous offense (murder) registered under Sections 302/201/34 of IPC and Sections 3/25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The incident occurred on February 17, 2021, and the dispute centered on whether Respondent No. 2 was above or below 18 years of age on that date.

Legal Journey

• The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) initially dismissed the application to declare Respondent No. 2 as a juvenile, holding him to be an adult (above 21 years based on medical examination).
• On appeal, the Additional District and Sessions Judge reversed the JJB's decision, holding that Respondent No. 2 was a juvenile (17 years, 3 months, 10 days old) at the time of the incident.
• The High Court upheld the Additional District and Sessions Judge's order declaring Respondent No. 2 a juvenile.
• The High Court also granted bail to Respondent No. 2, overturning the JJB's and Additional District and Sessions Judge's denial of bail.

Key Legal Issues

• The proper procedure for determination of juvenility under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
• The standards for granting bail to a juvenile in conflict with law.
• The application of Section 15 (preliminary assessment) of the JJ Act for heinous offenses by juveniles aged 16-18 years.

Court's Analysis and Findings

1. On Juvenility Determination

The Supreme Court upheld the finding that Respondent No. 2 was a juvenile at the time of the offense, based on:

(a) The clear statutory hierarchy in Section 94(2) of the JJ Act, 2015, which requires:

• First preference: Date of birth certificate from school or matriculation/equivalent certificate
• Second preference: Birth certificate from corporation/municipal authority/panchayat
• Last resort: Ossification test or other medical age determination test

(b) The JJB erred by:

• Ignoring available school and municipal birth certificates showing DOB as September 8, 2003
• Ordering a medical examination without following the statutory hierarchy
• Attempting to review its own earlier determination of the same person's date of birth (which it had no power to do)

(c) The Court distinguished this case from Union Territory of J&K v. Shubam Sangra (2022), where medical evidence was relied upon because documentary evidence of date of birth was not credible.

2. On Bail to Juvenile

The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the bail granted to Respondent No. 2 because:

(a) Three years had passed since the grant of bail

(b) No evidence was presented that Respondent No. 2 had misused his liberty

(c) The Court noted that bail could still be canceled if Respondent No. 2 misused his liberty in the future

3. On Preliminary Assessment under Section 15

The Court noted that the JJB had already conducted a preliminary assessment under Section 15 for Respondent No. 2 (being between 16-18 years and accused of a heinous offense) and had ordered that he be produced before the Juvenile Court/POCSO Court as per Section 18(3).

Key Legal Principles

1. Determination of Juvenility:

• The documentary evidence (school certificates and birth certificates) takes precedence over medical examination for determining age under Section 94(2) of the JJ Act.

2. Review Power:

• JJB has no power to review its own earlier decisions regarding age determination.

3. Heinous Offenses by Juveniles:

• For juveniles between 16-18 years accused of heinous offenses, Section 15 preliminary assessment must be conducted to determine if they should be tried as adults.

4. Bail to Juveniles:

• Long-standing bail should not be cancelled without evidence of misuse of liberty.