An unchallenged medical age-assessment direction binds the Juvenile Justice Board to act on the resulting report.

The petitioner was apprehended in connection with Maharajganj P.S. Case No. 244 of 2024 and was taken into protective custody on 17 June 2024.

The Juvenile Justice Board, Siwan, initially assessed his age as 16 years, 2 months and 11 days and declared him a child in conflict with law by order dated 19 July 2024/1 August 2024.

During the pendency of the petitioner’s bail revision, the Coordinate Bench of the High Court, by order dated 26 June 2025, directed that his age be assessed by a medical board.

The medical board assessed him to be approximately 20 years, 11 months and 10 days old.

Acting on the medical report, the Juvenile Justice Board altered its earlier determination by order dated 13 November 2025, declared the petitioner an adult, and directed that the record be transmitted to the competent court for trial as an adult.

The petitioner challenged that order in the present revision petition.

Whether the Juvenile Justice Board could reconsider and alter its earlier determination declaring the petitioner a juvenile after obtaining a medical age-assessment report pursuant to the High Court’s order.

Whether the Juvenile Justice Board was required to act upon the medical board’s report and transmit the case record to the competent court after the petitioner was assessed to be an adult.

Whether the impugned order suffered from any jurisdictional or legal infirmity warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction.

An order passed by a Coordinate Bench directing age determination through a medical board, when not challenged, attains finality and is binding on the parties and the subordinate adjudicatory authority.

The Juvenile Justice Board was therefore duty-bound to comply with that direction, obtain the medical opinion, and act upon the resulting report.

Where the medical assessment pursuant to the binding judicial direction establishes that the person is an adult, the Juvenile Justice Board may no longer proceed on the basis of its earlier juvenile-age determination and must transmit the case to the competent court for adult trial.

The Court held that the petitioner’s challenge was untenable because the earlier age determination had been reopened not merely on the Board’s own initiative, but pursuant to the Coordinate Bench’s order dated 26 June 2025, which the petitioner had not challenged and which had consequently attained finality.

Once the medical board assessed the petitioner’s age at approximately 20 years, 11 months and 10 days, the Juvenile Justice Board was bound to give effect to that report.

The Board’s alteration of its earlier order and transmission of the record to the competent court were therefore treated as necessary consequences of compliance with the binding High Court direction, rather than as an impermissible unilateral review of its earlier order.

In revisional jurisdiction, the Court found no legal infirmity in the Board’s decision.

It held that the Juvenile Justice Board was justified in acting upon the medical board’s report, declaring the petitioner an adult, and sending the record to the competent court for trial as an adult.

Finding no infirmity in the impugned order dated 13 November 2025, the Court dismissed the criminal revision petition as devoid of merit.