Courtesy: Sudeep Kothavade
Under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act 2015, the Allahabad High Court deals with criminal revisions, whereby issues related to the conviction, sentencing, or procedural aspects of juvenile cases are often addressed. The said court reviews these cases to ensure that the legal process has been followed correctly and that the juvenile’s rights have not been violated.
Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act having marginal note “Revision”, is as follows:
“102. The High Court may, at any time, either on its own motion or on an application received in this behalf, call for the record of any proceeding in which any Committee or Board or Children’s Court, or Court has passed an order, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any such order and may pass such order in relation thereto as it thinks fit:
Provided that the High Court shall not pass an order under this section prejudicial to any person without giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard.”
Section 102 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015.
It is pertinent to note that the Juvenile Justice Act and the Model Rules constitute an independent code for issues concerning a child or a juvenile, particularly a juvenile in conflict with law. The code is intended to safeguard the rights of the child and a juvenile in conflict with the law and to put him in a category separate and distinct from an adult accused of a crime.
It has been held that the power of revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act can only be exercised by the High Court, and not by any trial court/children’s court etc.
What are the types of Orders challenged under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act?
Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act 2015 provides for Criminal Revision before the High Court against any proceeding before the Juvenile Justice Board, Children’s Court, or Civil Court. It has also been held that the Juvenile Justice Act 2015 is a complete code in itself. Hence, all orders for which an appeal has not been provided can be challenged by filing a Criminal Revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act 2015 before the Allahabad High Court.
Since, the Code does not stipulate a second appeal, and the same has been upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court, hence, appellate orders from the Sessions Court can also be challenged by means of Criminal Revision.
It has been further held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that merely the existence of an alternative remedy for appeal under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice Act 2015 will not deem the Criminal Revision as not maintainable.
Whether the gravity of the offence, alone, can be a valid ground for rejecting the bail of a juvenile in conflict with the law, and what are the factors to be considered for granting bail?
The gravity of the offence alone cannot be a valid ground for rejecting the bail of a juvenile in conflict with the law unless it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the said juvenile in conflict with the law would not be reformed if he/ she is released on bail. The same was affirmed in the case of X- Juvenile vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others, wherein the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court while granting bail to a Juvenile charged for offences punishable under Sections 376-D, 504, 352 IPC and 5/6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 provided certain important factors that are to be taken into consideration by the Lower Courts before granting bail to the said juvenile, the said grounds are:
- Whether the said accused is a minor (below 18 years of age).
- Whether any medical examination of the accused is done by the authorities specially in cases where the accused is charged with committing the offence of rape.
- Whether there persists any substantive piece of evidence that would assist the court in forming a presumption that the said accused wouldn’t be reformed if released on bail.
Can the Allahabad High Court, under revisional jurisdiction, embark on any enquiry upon the gravity of allegations in cases where bail has been rejected?
The Allahabad High Court is not empowered to embark on any enquiry upon the gravity of offences for which the juvenile in conflict with the law is charged. Rather the said court is empowered to examine the fact that the lower courts have taken into account the ingredients for the grant of bail/ release which are envisaged under Section 12 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. The same was affirmed by the Hon’ble Court in the case of Vishal Kannaujiaya vs State Of U.P. And Another.
Whether Allahabad High Court may grant bail in Criminal Revision on the ground of weak and circumstantial evidence available against the Juvenile?
In the case of Dharmendra (Juvenile) vs State Of U.P. & Another, Criminal Revision No. 4141 of 2017, the Allahabad High Court set aside the Bail rejection Orders and enlarged the accused on bail, on the ground that the evidence against the Accused was weak and circumstantial. While granting bail to the revisionist, the Hon’ble Court emphasized that Section 12(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act favours granting bail to juveniles unless they fall under one of the three specific exceptions in the proviso. In the said order, the Hon’ble Court noted that if an adult facing similar weak evidence would be granted bail, denying it to a juvenile could violate Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equal protection of laws.
In another case of Minor Accused “A” vs. State of U.P. and others, the Allahabad High Court granted bail to a juvenile when the statement of the victim was recorded and the victim could not identify the individual who committed the offence.
Can a Writ Petition under Section 226 of the Constitution of India be entertained if an alternative remedy is available under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act 2015?
A Writ Petition under Section 226 of the Constitution of India may not be entertained and be dismissed by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court because an alternative remedy is available under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act 2015. This has been held by Allahabad High Court in the case of Preeti Devi @ Anamika vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And 4 Others. In this case, while dismissing the petition praying for a writ of Habeas Corpus, the Hon’ble Court held that the Writ petition is not maintainable since an alternative remedy is available under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act 2015.
Another Habeas Corpus Petition was dismissed on the grounds of the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice Act in the case of Smt. Pinki Thru. Husband Pappu vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Lko.& Ors.
Whether Revision under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act be filed by a juvenile in conflict of law, against an order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, wherein the said board affirmed that the said juvenile must be tried as an adult?
Under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015, certain conditions must be met for a juvenile to be tried as an adult. Here are the essentials:
- Age Criteria: The juvenile must be between 16 and 18 years of age at the time of committing the alleged offence.
- Nature of Offence: The offence must be classified as a “heinous offence,” which is defined as an offence for which the minimum punishment under the Indian Penal Code,1860 or Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023 is imprisonment for seven years or more.
- Preliminary Assessment: The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) is required to conduct a preliminary assessment to evaluate the juvenile’s mental and physical capacity to commit such an offence, the ability to understand the consequences of the offence, and the circumstances in which the offence was allegedly committed.
- Transfer to Children’s Court: If the JJB, after the preliminary assessment, concludes that the juvenile should be tried as an adult, it may transfer the case to the Children’s Court, which has the jurisdiction to try such offences.
- Legal Representation: The juvenile must be provided with legal representation throughout the process to ensure a fair trial.
- Reformative Approach: Even if tried as an adult, the focus remains on reformative and rehabilitative measures, ensuring that the juvenile receives appropriate care and protection.
The legal provisions that provide the factors for a juvenile to be tried as an adult were laid down by this Hon’ble Court in the case of Yash Anand @ Iddu (Minor) vs State Of U.P. & Another,
Can the Allahabad High Court interfere if the Preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act has been done without a psychological test by a Psychiatrist?
The psychological test of a juvenile in conflict with the law must be done before the said juvenile is tried as an adult, and the same is affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Barun Chandra Thakur vs Master Bholu. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that the evaluation of the “mental capacity and ability to understand the consequences” of the child in conflict with the law can, in no way, be relegated to the status of a perfunctory and routine task.
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Minor ‘X’ vs State Of U.P. And Another remanded the preliminary assessment back to the Juvenile Justice Board as the same was not determined in accordance with the law laid down in Barun Chandra Thakur vs. Master Bholu. The Hon’ble Court held:
“On perusal of the impugned orders, it is revealed that an application was moved by the juvenile requesting the Juvenile Justice Board to get himself examined by a psychologist/psychiatrist, however, it appears that this specific request was not accepted. I perused the impugned order passed by Juvenile Justice Board. It appears that though, the Juvenile Justice Board put some questions with the objective of assessing his mental capacity and the capacity to understand the consequences of the act, however, it is not clear that any of the members of the Board was a professional in child psychology.”
Conclusion
Under the Criminal Revision before the Allahabad High Court, the grounds taken must be thorough and in consonance with the principles enunciated in the Juvenile Justice Act 2015. Many more orders are challenged before the Allahabad High Court by means of filing Criminal Revision, and the above cases are just a few select prominent cases which have been discussed to explore this jurisdiction.