#juvenile justice

The court held Section 467 IPC carries a maximum seven-year sentence, classifying it as a 'serious offence' under the JJ Act 2015, not 'heinous'. This eliminates the need for a Section 15 preliminary assessment. The transfer of a 16-year-old to the Children's Court was quashed, restoring the JJB's trial jurisdiction. The ruling clarifies the offence classification threshold for juveniles aged 16-18.

Calcutta HC ruled a child neither orphaned nor abandoned is not in need of care and protection under Sec 2(14) JJ Act, directing CWC to restore custody to adoptive parents by 18 Sept 2026 at 4:00pm and to submit quarterly welfare reports from Dec 2026.

The Supreme Court ruled that a High Court cannot invoke its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to set aside a conviction that has already attained finality before the apex court, even if the accused later proves he was a juvenile under Section 7A of the Juvenile Justice Act. This narrows the scope of Section 482, preserving the finality of appellate judgments and limiting relief avenues for convicted persons claiming subsequent juvenility.

The Supreme Court affirmed Dinesh Kumar's murder conviction under IPC 302/34 but, after the Juvenile Justice Board confirmed he was a minor at the time, it vacated his life term and rigorous imprisonment, ordering his release and removing any disqualification. The ruling clarifies that juveniles cannot be subjected to adult sentencing even for serious offences.

Orissa HC rules that denial of bail to a child in conflict with law under Section 12 of the JJ Act, 2015 requires specific grounds, not just the gravity of the offence. The court emphasized that detention is an exception, not the rule, and vague safety concerns are insufficient.

Allahabad HC upheld conviction under Section 307 IPC but reduced the sentence to 3 years after determining the accused was a juvenile (17 years 10 months) at the time of the offence. The ruling emphasizes the primacy of juvenile justice principles over punitive sentencing in serious offences.

Allahabad HC directs Juvenile Justice Boards to conclude pending juvenile trials within one year under BNSS Section 529, prioritizing expeditious justice for children in conflict with law. The ruling addresses systemic delays in juvenile cases, emphasizing compliance with statutory timelines to protect child rights.

Kerala High Court rules that consensual sexual acts between minors do not attract penal provisions under POCSO Act or Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, granting pre-arrest bail to a 17-year-old. The judgment emphasizes the absence of criminal intent where both parties are juveniles, setting a precedent for juvenile justice under the new criminal laws.

The Supreme Court ruled that failure to conduct a mandatory preliminary assessment under Section 19(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act before trial renders the proceedings void. The Court acquitted the appellant, who had been incarcerated for six years, reinforcing strict compliance with procedural safeguards for children in conflict with law.

The Supreme Court ruled that Children’s Courts must pass a reasoned order under Section 19(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act before proceeding with a trial as an adult. Failure to comply with this mandatory procedural safeguard vitiates the conviction, reinforcing the Act’s rehabilitative focus over punitive measures.

Rajasthan High Court upholds a minor girl’s right to choose her custodial parent under habeas corpus, directing police to ensure her safety. The ruling reinforces that a minor’s expressed preference can override parental claims in custody disputes, setting a precedent for juvenile autonomy in family law.

Karnataka High Court rules that minors accused under the SC/ST Act and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita are entitled to anticipatory bail if no direct allegations or weapon involvement are proven, especially after charge sheet filing. The ruling reinforces safeguards against custodial interrogation for juvenile appellants in atrocity cases.

Allahabad HC grants bail in a POCSO case where the accused, initially a juvenile, remained detained for four years without trial conclusion. The court emphasized judicial restraint, noting the victim's cross-examination revealed tutored testimony and the medico-legal report lacked conclusive evidence of rape or penetrative assault. The ruling underscores that prolonged pre-trial detention and evidentiary gaps may outweigh gravity of allegations in bail considerations.

Allahabad HC reaffirms that bail cancellation under Section 528 BNSS demands cogent evidence of post-bail misconduct, rejecting the mere registration of a subsequent FIR as sufficient grounds. The ruling underscores that liberty cannot be revoked without demonstrable violation of bail conditions or new criminal conduct.

The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that closing cross-examination of a complainant solely because the juvenile accused’s counsel was absent violates the fundamental right to a fair trial under the Juvenile Justice Act. This sets a critical precedent that procedural lapses by defense counsel cannot override the child’s constitutional right to confront witnesses, reinforcing that juvenile proceedings demand heightened procedural safeguards.