Juvenile justice boards as administrative bodies
The Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs) are quasi-judicial administrative bodies established under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act). Their primary purpose is to adjudicate cases involving children in conflict with law, while ensuring that such children are dealt with in a reformative and rehabilitative manner, not a punitive one.
⚖️ Juvenile Justice Boards: Administrative Role
🔹 1. Constitution of JJBs
Constituted under Section 4 of the JJ Act, 2015.
Comprises:
A Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate First Class (as Principal Magistrate)
Two social workers, at least one of whom must be a woman.
🔹 2. Quasi-Judicial and Administrative Nature
Though the Principal Magistrate is a judge, the Board as a whole functions as a quasi-judicial body with administrative powers.
The Board does not follow strict civil or criminal procedures but ensures procedural fairness.
🔹 3. Jurisdiction
Handles cases where the accused is a child in conflict with law (CICL), i.e., below 18 years at the time of the offence.
Under certain conditions (for heinous crimes by children aged 16-18), the JJB conducts a preliminary assessment to decide whether the child should be tried as an adult (Section 15).
🔹 4. Functions as an Administrative Body
Conducts inquiries in a child-friendly manner.
Ensures the presence of Child Welfare Officers or Probation Officers.
Coordinates with Child Welfare Committees (CWCs), rehabilitation homes, and other stakeholders.
Passes orders regarding rehabilitation, reform, community service, counselling, etc., instead of punishment.
Sends children to Observation Homes, not jails.
📚 Important Case Laws on Juvenile Justice Boards (Explained in Detail)
1. Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand, (2005) 3 SCC 551
Facts:
A boy was accused of committing murder. A key issue was whether he should be treated as a juvenile.
He had crossed 16 years but not 18 at the time of offence.
Issue:
What is the cut-off date for determining juvenility – date of offence or date of trial?
Held:
Supreme Court held that date of offence is the correct date to determine whether a person is a juvenile.
The boy should be tried by the Juvenile Justice Board, not a regular criminal court.
Significance:
Cemented the role of JJBs in handling juvenile cases regardless of the stage of trial, if the person was under 18 at the time of offence.
Protected the child’s right to reformative justice.
2. Epari Chinna Krishna Moorthy v. State of Orissa, 1994 CriLJ 1873 (Ori HC)
Facts:
The accused claimed to be a juvenile during the proceedings of a criminal case.
The question was raised late in trial.
Issue:
Can the claim of juvenility be raised at any stage?
Held:
The High Court held that the claim of juvenility can be raised at any stage, even after conviction.
Directed the matter to be handed over to the Juvenile Justice Board for proper adjudication.
Significance:
Recognized the continuous jurisdiction of JJBs and their exclusive right to deal with juvenile cases.
Strengthened the rehabilitative approach over punitive action.
3. Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 13 SCC 211
Facts:
A child was convicted by a regular sessions court as he was over 16 but under 18 when the offence occurred, under the JJ Act, 1986.
Issue:
Should he be tried as an adult or under the Juvenile system?
Held:
The Court held that the 2000 Act (now 2015 Act) raised the age of juvenility to 18 years, and it applied retrospectively.
Directed that the accused should be treated as a juvenile and the matter be dealt with by the JJB.
Significance:
Validated the jurisdiction of JJBs in older cases as long as the accused was under 18 at the time of offence.
Reinforced the importance of child-friendly justice systems.
4. Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Raju, (2014) 8 SCC 390
Facts:
Related to the Delhi gang rape case (2012) where one of the accused was a juvenile aged 17.
Public figures challenged the JJ Board’s jurisdiction to try him.
Issue:
Can a juvenile who commits heinous crimes be exempt from adult punishment?
Held:
Supreme Court upheld the juvenile’s right to be tried under the Juvenile Justice system.
Emphasized that JJBs are empowered to handle even serious cases involving juveniles.
Significance:
Reaffirmed the primary objective of JJBs: reform, not retribution.
The case also sparked legal reform, leading to JJ Act, 2015, which introduced preliminary assessment for heinous crimes by juveniles aged 16–18.
5. Shilpa Mittal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 2 SCC 787
Facts:
The accused was 17.9 years old at the time of committing a serious offence (not heinous).
There was confusion whether such a child could be transferred to a Children’s Court for trial as an adult.
Issue:
Can a juvenile who commits a serious offence (punishable between 3–7 years) be tried as an adult?
Held:
Supreme Court clarified that only in heinous offences (punishable with minimum 7 years or more), the child can be considered for adult trial.
In this case, since the offence was serious but not heinous, the child must be tried by the Juvenile Justice Board.
Significance:
Clarified the classification of offences and helped define the scope of JJBs.
Upheld the exclusive jurisdiction of JJBs for most juvenile offences.
🧾 Summary Table of Case Laws
| Case Name | Key Issue | Legal Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Pratap Singh | Cut-off date for juvenility | Date of offence is decisive |
| Epari Chinna Krishna | When can juvenility be raised? | At any stage, even post-conviction |
| Hari Ram | Retrospective application of JJ Act | Juvenile even if tried earlier as adult |
| Subramanian Swamy v. Raju | Heinous crime by juvenile | Still within JJB’s jurisdiction |
| Shilpa Mittal | Serious vs Heinous offences | Clarified when adult trial applies |
🎯 Conclusion
The Juvenile Justice Boards are essential administrative-cum-judicial institutions responsible for ensuring that children in conflict with law are dealt with through reformative, rehabilitative, and child-friendly procedures. They:
Replace punishment with counselling, supervision, and support.
Uphold natural justice, due process, and child rights.
Coordinate with multiple agencies for the best interests of the child.
The judiciary has consistently reinforced the exclusive and compassionate jurisdiction of JJBs, making them a critical component of India’s juvenile justice system.
RELATED Blog
0 comments