How should JJBs decide whether juveniles should be tried as adults? Supreme Court answers

The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the decision to try a 16-year-old boy accused of murdering another child, as an adult [X v. State of Bihar & Anr].

In doing so, a Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan laid down the principles that Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs) must follow before deciding whether a juvenile should face trial as an adult.

The case arose from the alleged murder of a boy in Bihar in May 2022. According to the prosecution, the deceased had gone out with the juvenile (appellant) and another boy before his body was found in a field the next morning. The appellant, who was 16 years and 4 months old at the time, was accused of slitting the victim’s throat with a knife.

A JJB initially held by majority that the boy should be tried as a juvenile, finding that he did not have the mental and physical capacity to commit the alleged offence. However, an appellate court reversed that decision and directed that he be tried as an adult. The Patna High Court later upheld that order.

The juvenile then approached the Supreme Court, which upheld the High Court’s decision.

It rejected the juvenile’s argument that murder should be treated as a “serious offence” instead of a “heinous offence” under the Juvenile Justice Act because Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code does not expressly prescribe a minimum sentence.

The Bench held that a person convicted under Section 302 cannot be sentenced to anything less than life imprisonment. Murder, therefore, falls within the category of a “heinous offence” under the Juvenile Justice Act.

“We have no hesitation in saying that an offence punishable under Section 302 cannot be placed in the same category as offences which do not prescribe any minimum sentence under the definition of ‘serious offence’ under Section 2(54) of the JJ Act,” it noted.

The Court also rejected the argument that appellate courts must obtain fresh opinions from psychologists or medical specialists in every appeal arising from a preliminary assessment by a JJB.

“Section 101(2) confers a power upon the Appellate Court to seek the assistance of experts, the exercise of which remains within the discretion of the Court.”

The Bench then laid down the principles that JJBs must follow while conducting a preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Act.

Preliminary assessment is not a trial

The Court said the purpose of the exercise is only to determine whether a child above the age of 16 should be tried as an adult. It is not meant to determine guilt or innocence and the Board must refrain from making observations that could prejudice the criminal trial.

All four statutory factors must be examined

The Board must independently and collectively assess the child’s:

• mental capacity to commit the alleged offence;

• physical capacity to commit the alleged offence;

• ability to understand the consequences of the offence; and

• the circumstances in which the offence was allegedly committed.

Mental capacity is more than intelligence

The Bench explained that mental capacity includes a child’s comprehension, reasoning, decision-making ability and understanding of the consequences of the alleged act. These factors must be assessed in the context of the offence alleged.

Physical capacity depends on the nature of the offence

The assessment is not limited to physical strength, the Court said. Instead, the Board must examine whether, having regard to the child’s age and physical development, the child was capable of committing the offence in the manner alleged.

Expert opinion alone cannot decide the issue

The Court held that reports of psychologists and other experts are only one part of the assessment and cannot, by themselves, determine whether a child should face an adult trial. It added that the Board cannot simply adopt an expert’s opinion without independently evaluating the entire record.

“The Board cannot abdicate its responsibilities by mechanically adopting the conclusions of the expert without examining whether the conclusions reached are supported by the totality of the material before it,” it observed.

Social investigation and social background reports must be considered

The Court emphasised that the Social Investigation Report (SIR) and Social Background Report (SBR) are integral to the preliminary assessment and must be considered alongside expert reports and other evidence.

“We underscore or rather emphasize that the SIR and the SBR reports are not supplementary material, they constitute pertinent inputs for the preliminary assessment and must be accorded due weight alongside the expert opinion,” it noted.

Reasoned orders are mandatory

The Court said that JJBs must explain why they accept or reject the conclusions contained in expert reports, the SIR, the SBR, and link their findings to the four statutory factors under Section 15 of the Act.

Applying these principles to the present case, the Supreme Court found that the JJB had relied almost entirely on the expert opinion while deciding that the juvenile should not be tried as an adult.

The Board, the Court said, failed to properly consider the SIR and the SBR, both of which are mandatory inputs while conducting a preliminary assessment.

Therefore, finding no legal error in the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court dismissed the juvenile's appeal.

[Read Judgment]