[Juvenile Justice Act] Extracting confession from child during preliminary assessment unconstitutional: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that extracting confession from a child about the manner in which the offence was committed, is beyond the scope of the preliminary assessment report prepared under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act) and is 'unconstitutional' [Vikas Sangwan vs State]..Hence, a psychologist extracting such a confession from a child cannot be sustained, a division bench of Justices Mukta Gupta and Anish Dayal said.Section 15 of the JJ Act prescribes that in case of a heinous offence alleged to have been committed by a child, who has completed or is above the age of sixteen years, the JJ Board should conduct a preliminary assessment with regard to his mental and physical capacity to commit such offence, ability to understand the consequences of the offence and the circumstances in which he allegedly committed the offence, before passing an order. "Under Clause 3 of the said report, it can be clearly noted that a confession is sought to be extracted from the child as to the manner in which the offence was committed and the reasons thereof. This manner of seeking a confession from the child is unconstitutional and beyond the scope of a report of preliminary assessment to be prepared under Section 15 of the JJ Act," the Court said. The observation was made in a case initiated by the Court with respect to the guidelines to be issued Juvenile Justice Boards for the conduct of preliminary assessment in case of heinous offences of children in conflict with the law..During the hearing, counsel for intervenor Haq Centre for Child Rights brought to the notice of the Court, the preliminary assessment report prepared by a psychologist.It was submitted by the intervenor that the report revealed that the constitutional right against self-incrimination of the child was completely compromised and waived for the purpose of preliminary assessment.It was further contended that through the psychological examination or inquiry, the child was being asked questions that even an adult cannot be compelled to answer under the law when faced with allegations of the commission of a heinous offence.The Court noted the same in its order.Besides the guidelines directed by the Supreme Court in relation to the report of preliminary assessment in Barun Chandra Thakur Vs. Master Bholu & Anr., the Court found that even the questionnaire relating to the preparation of the social investigation report (SIR) for children in conflict with law under Section 8 of the JJ Act were incorrect since a presumption was raised at the pre-trial stage itself that the child had committed the offence.The matter was eventually adjourned for December 7 after noting that record from JJ Board has not been received."Though the record from the Court of learned ASJ has been received, however the record from the learned Juvenile Justice Board has not been received. Registry will call for the record of the Juvenile Justice Board in sealed cover to this Court before the next date of hearing," the order said. .Advocates Brijesh appeared for one of the petitioners in the matter.Senior Advocate Dayan Krishnan appeared as amicus curiae in the matter along with advocates Sanjeevi Seshadri, Sukrit Seth and Shreedhar Kale.Advocates Vrinda Grover, Soutik Banerjee, Mannat Tipnis and Devika Tulsiani appeared for intervener, HAQ.ASC Nandita Rao appeared for State.Advocate Veer Vikrant Singh appeared for NCPCR.DCPCR was represented through advocate Neha Jain..[Read Order]