JJ Act | 3 Months Time Limit For Preliminary Assessment Of Juvenile As Per Sec. 14(3) Not Mandatory: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that the time limit of three months prescribed under Section 14(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Act, 2015 for ascertaining the mental and physical capacity of a child below the age of sixteen years to commit a serious offence is not mandatory but directory.

“As in the process of preliminary inquiry there is involvement of many persons, namely, the investigating officer, the experts whose opinion is to be obtained, and thereafter the proceedings before the Board, where for different reasons any of the party may be able to delay the proceedings, in our opinion the time so provided in Section 14(3) cannot be held to be mandatory, as no consequences of failure have been provided as is there in case of enquiry into petty offences in terms of Section 14(4) of the Act.”, the bench comprising Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal said.

The court reasoned that where consequences for default for a prescribed period in a Statute are not mentioned, the same cannot be held to be mandatory.

Section 14(3) of the JJ Act states that "a preliminary assessment in case of heinous offences under Section 15 shall be disposed of by the Board within a period of three months from the date of the first production of the child before the Board."

Section 15(1) of the Act provides that the Juvenile Justice Board shall conduct a preliminary assessment to ascertain the mental and physical capacity of the Child below the age of sixteen years to commit such offence, his ability to understand the consequences of the offence and the circumstances in which the offence is allegedly committed by him.

Rather than interpreting Section 14(3) of the JJ Act in a strict sense, the court construed the provision in a harmonious way to make it meaningful.

"In our opinion, the guidance as is evident from sub-section (4) of section 14 of the Act enabling the Chief Judicial Magistrate or Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to extend the period of inquiry as envisaged under Section 14(1), shall apply for extension of period as envisaged in sub-section (3) also. Such an extension can be granted for a limited period for the reasons to be recorded in writing. While considering the prayer for extension of time, the delay in receipt of opinion of the experts shall be a relevant factor. This shall be in the spirit of the Act and giving the same a purposive meaning.", the court reasoned.

"We approve the views expressed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Bhola vs State of Madhya Pradesh and the High Court in Delhi in CCL vs State (NCT) of Delhi who while dealing with the provisions of section 14 of the Act have held that the time period prescribed for completion of the preliminary assessment is not mandatory but merely directory in nature. We also approve the views expressed by the High Court of the Punjab and Haryana in Neeraj and Others vs State of Haryana and by the High Court of Delhi in X (Through his Elder Brother) vs State who also expressed similar views while dealing with the pari materia provisions of the repealed Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.", the court added.

Counsels For Petitioner(s) Mr. S Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, AOR Mr. Shakti Singh, Adv. Mr. R Karthik, Adv. Mr. T Hari, Adv.

Counsels For Respondent(s) Mr. Aman Panwar, A.A.G. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Manendra Pal Gupta, Adv. Mr. Shivam Singh Baghel, Adv. Mr. Harsh Gattani, Adv.

Case Title: CHILD IN CONFLICT WITH LAW THROUGH HIS MOTHER VERSUS THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 353

Click here to read/download the judgment