Can deadline for preliminary assessment of juveniles in heinous offences be extended? Supreme Court answers

The Supreme Court recently ruled that the three-month deadline under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act or JJ Act for preliminary assessment of the child aged 16 years and above, in case of a heinous offence, is not mandatory but directory [Child in conflict with law Through his mother v. State of Karnataka and Another]..Section 15 of the JJ Act mandates the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) to conduct a preliminary assessment of the child, aged between 16 to 18 years, in case of a heinous offence. As per Section 14 (3) of the Act, the preliminary assessment is to be completed within three months..The Bench of Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Rajesh Bindal said the period can be extended by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in a reasoned decision."The provision of Section 14(3) of the Act, providing for the period of three months for completion of a preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Act, is not mandatory. The same is held to be directory," the Court ruled..The Court passed the decision on an appeal challenging a decision of the Karnataka High Court in a rape case involving a child in conflict with law.It noted the JJ Act does not provide for any extension of time in such cases or lay down the consequence for non-completion of inquiry within the time permissible.It found this to be in contrast to the provision for cases of petty offences under JJ Act in which the inquiry has to be completed within four months, with the provision for extension of two months by the JJB and termination of an inconclusive inquiry after the extended period..However, the Court also noted that JJ Act provides that in case the JJB requires further extension of time for completion of inquiry into serious and heinous offences, the same can be granted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, with recorded reasons.It further noted that preliminary assessment of the child involved in a heinous offence enables the JJB to take assistance from experienced psychologists or psycho- social workers or other experts..It stressed that the preliminary assessment has large ramifications as it determines whether inquiry against the child is to be conducted by the JJB or whether he has to face trial before the Children's Court.The JJB can give a lighter punishment while Children's Court can treat him as an adult and give stringent punishment, the Court noted."The intention of the legislature with reference to serious or heinous offences is also available from the language of Section 14 of the Act which itself provides for further extension of time for completion of inquiry by the Board to be granted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate or Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for the reasons to be recorded in writing. It is in addition to two months’ extension which the Board itself can grant," the Court observed..Thus, it concluded that in the absence of provision for extension of time and the consequence for default of the deadline, the provision prescribing time limit of completion of inquiry cannot be held to be mandatory. "Where consequences for default for a prescribed period in a Statute are not mentioned, the same cannot be held to be mandatory," it said.Madhya Pradesh High Court and Delhi High Court earlier had passed similar decisions, ruling that the three-month period was not mandatory..Senior Advocates S Nagamuthu and Sidharth Luthra with Advocates Sakshi Kakkar, Shakti Singh, R Karthik and T Hari appeared for the appellants.Additional Advocate General Aman Panwar and advocates Raghupathy, Manendra Pal Gupta, Shivam Singh Baghel and Harsh Gattani appeared for the respondents..[Read Judgment]