Topic
The Juvenile Justice Act governs the care, protection, and rehabilitation of children below 18 in India, including procedures for age determination, preliminary assessment, and placement in institutional care.
The Supreme Court allowed the mother to relocate her two children to the UK for better education and finances, holding that the Tender Years Doctrine cannot dictate custody and that the child's welfare must prevail, despite POCSO allegations against the father.
HP HC held that under BNSS §432, prosecution may submit a matriculation certificate as additional evidence to prove a victim's age in a POCSO case at the appellate stage if it supports the case. This clarifies age-proof evidence rules in POCSO trials.
The Supreme Court set aside the POCSO conviction for lack of proof of the victim's minority via JJ Act documents or ossification test. It upheld the accused's IPC 376 rape conviction, confirming the offence was proved despite the POCSO charge failing.
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.
Calcutta HC set aside the CWC’s finding that the newborn was abandoned and the parents incapacitated, ruling the committee ignored the procedural safeguards of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The judgment obliges all custody and adoption orders to meet JJ Act due-process, protecting biological parents.
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.
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.
Himachal Pradesh High Court quashes FIR under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Section 115(2) and Juvenile Justice Act Section 75, holding that minor offences of a personal nature can be compromised if voluntary, non-coercive, and without societal harm. The ruling reinforces the judiciary's discretion to prioritize amicable settlements in petty cases involving children.
The Kerala High Court has ruled that merely storing tobacco products at home, even in bulk, cannot trigger criminal liability under Section 77 of the Juvenile Justice Act unless there is concrete evidence linking the accused to supplying those products to minors. This clarifies the boundary between mere possession and intentional violation, protecting innocent retailers from overbroad prosecution.
Rajasthan High Court rules that trial courts must prioritize and conclusively determine a victim's age under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act before proceeding with POCSO cases, ensuring compliance with statutory safeguards. The directive mandates recording the victim's statement within 30 days, failing which legal measures must be employed to secure attendance.
When the Juvenile Justice Board determines a person is above 16 years, the law mandates trial as an adult in the Children's Court under the POCSO Act - proceedings cannot be quashed merely because the accused claims juvenile status. This ruling closes a procedural loophole and reinforces that age determination by the JJB is final for forum allocation, binding all subsequent courts.
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that the statutory 3-month window for preliminary assessment under the Juvenile Justice Act begins when the child is first produced before the Juvenile Justice Board for age determination, not at the time of FIR registration or initial police production. This ensures procedural fairness and prevents premature trial as an adult, safeguarding juveniles from procedural delays that could undermine their statutory rights.