Allahabad High Court issues guidelines for preliminary assessment of juveniles who commit heinous offences

The Allahabad High Court on Friday observed that the provision under  Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act of 2015 for the preliminary assessment of a juvenile in cases of heinous offences is absolutely vague as it does not explain how the evaluation is to be conducted.

Justice Siddharth thus issued guidelines for the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) and Children's Court to guide them in making preliminary assessment of juveniles for the purpose of their trial in cases involving heinous offences.

“This Court finds that the provisions of Section 15(1) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 are absolutely vague, although preliminary assessment of the child in conflict with law is provided in the aforesaid section with the help of psychologists or psycho-social workers or other experts, but process of determination has not been provided anywhere,” the Court said. 

A child aged 16 years or above involved in a heinous offence is required to be subjected to a preliminary assessment to decide whether he is to be tried as a minor or an adult.

Section 15 of the JJ Act provides that the JJB shall conduct a preliminary assessment with regard to such child's mental and physical capacity to commit such offence, ability to understand the consequences of it and the circumstances in which the alleged act was committed. The provision provides for taking assistance of experienced psychologists or psycho-social workers or other experts.

Dealing with a case in which a child aged above 17 years was ordered to be treated as an adult in a murder case, the Court found that the report of a psychologist was called for only to make a formal compliance with the law.

The report failed to record the kind of test that the juvenile was subjected to, the Court said.

The Court said it has come across a number of orders of preliminary assessment in which the psychologist’s report does not state anything about the nature of the test.

“This Court has come across cases where the Juvenile Justice Board and the Children's Court have not found any psychologist within their jurisdiction from where they can get report of psychologist. Hence they decided the issue of preliminary assessment on mere questioning of the child,” the single judge added.

The Court noted that the Supreme Court in Barun Chandra Thakur Vs. Master Bholu had left it open for the Central government and the National and State Commissions for Protection of Child Rights to consider issuing guidelines or directions in regard to the preliminary assessment. But nothing has been done yet, the Court found.

The issue of preliminary assessments of juveniles under Section 15 of JJ Act is a delicate and difficult task, which requires expertise, the Court said.

It then proceeded to issue a slew of guidelines.

• The JJB will necessarily call the report of the psychologist regarding the test of intelligence of the child conducted regarding his ability to understand the consequences of his act. Besides that, the EQ and IQ of such a child shall also be clearly indicated in the report of psychologist;

• Clear finding shall be recorded regarding the child's physical and mental capability to commit heinous crime alleged and his ability to understand its consequences;

• The degree of intellectual disability or mental illness of child, if any;

• The Board shall direct the probation officer, or in case a probation officer is not available, the child welfare officer or a social worker, to undertake social investigation into the case and submit a social investigation report within a period of fifteen days from the date of first production of child before JJB;

• The number and nature of the previous implications of the child with details of names of complaint/complaint;

• Whether the alleged offence is part of a repetitive pattern of similar adjudicated offenses committed by child and whether implications have been made by same complainant;

• The child's school record and education.

Meanwhile, in the murder case the Court was considering, it granted relief to the juvenile and ordered his fresh assessment. The Court said the psychologist's report did not seem to be reliable

“The Board has although recorded the finding that the revisionist has criminal antecedents of implication in two cases, but that cannot be the sole ground for declaring him adult for the purpose of trial regarding the heinous offence wherein he has been implicated,” it added. 

Advocates Abhishit Jaiswal and Aushim Luthra represented the juvenile.

[Read Judgment]