Children’s Court Order Under Section 19(1) of Juvenile Justice Act is Mandatory to Vitiate or Legalize Trial

The Appellant, aged 16.5 years at the time of the incident on 21.10.2018, was accused of murdering one Mandeep Kumar by striking him with an iron pipe

Following an investigation, the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) conducted a preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and opined that the Appellant had the capacity to be tried as an adult

The JJB committed the matter to the Children’s Court (Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal) under Section 18(3) of the Act

The Children’s Court proceeded with a Sessions trial without recording a specific order under Section 19(1), subsequently convicting the Appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to 14 years of rigorous imprisonment

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana affirmed the conviction

The court primarily applied Section 19(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which stipulates that upon receiving a preliminary assessment, the Children’s Court must decide whether to try the child as an adult or an inquiry as a Board

Rule 13 of the Juvenile Justice Model Rules, 2016, which mandates recording reasons for such a decision

The word "may" in Section 19(1) must be read as "shall"; Ajeet Gurjar v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023) 15 SCC 678

Non-compliance with these mandatory procedures vitiates the entire trial; Thirumoorthy v. State (2024) 12 SCC 307

The Court reasoned that Section 19(1) is not a mere procedural formality but a substantive requirement that determines the jurisdiction and the nature of the trial

If a Children’s Court decides to try a child as an adult, it follows a Sessions trial; otherwise, it must conduct an inquiry as a Board following summons case procedures

In this case, the Children’s Court bypassed the mandatory evaluative step of passing a reasoned order under Section 19(1) before commencing the trial

This omission struck at the root of the protective framework of the Act, as it risked subjecting a child to adult penalties (exceeding three years) without the statutory satisfaction required

Furthermore, given the Appellant is now 24 years old and has served over six years, the Court found it unfeasible to remand the matter for a fresh assessment of mental capacity at the time of the 2018 offence

The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the Children’s Court and the High Court, acquitted the Appellant, and discharged his bail bonds

Additionally, the Court issued a mandatory direction to all Children’s Courts across India to pass a reasoned order under Section 19(1) immediately upon receipt of records under Section 18(3) before proceeding further