Juvenile Justice Boards Jurisdiction
Juvenile Justice Boards (JJB) Jurisdiction
Definition & Background:
Juvenile Justice Boards are special authorities constituted under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 in India to deal exclusively with juveniles (persons below 18 years) alleged to have committed an offense. The main objective is to ensure that children in conflict with law receive care, protection, and rehabilitation, rather than punishment.
Jurisdiction of JJB:
The JJB has the authority to conduct inquiries into offenses committed by juveniles.
It tries juveniles under the special provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act.
For serious offenses, the JJB can conduct preliminary assessments to decide whether the juvenile should be tried as an adult.
It directs the rehabilitation, care, and social reintegration of the juvenile offender.
Detailed Explanation of Jurisdiction
Exclusive jurisdiction over juveniles:
JJB has exclusive power to take cognizance of offenses committed by juveniles (below 18 years), whether cognizable or non-cognizable.
Preliminary assessment for heinous offenses:
If a juvenile (aged 16-18) is alleged to have committed a heinous offense (punishable with 7 years or more), the JJB must conduct a preliminary assessment to decide if the case should be tried in a regular criminal court as an adult.
Non-applicability of normal criminal procedures:
The procedure before the JJB is informal and child-friendly, ensuring the child’s dignity and best interests, not strictly following the Indian Penal Code (IPC) or CrPC procedures.
Sentencing power:
JJB cannot impose punishments like imprisonment but can order rehabilitation, counseling, foster care, or placement in a special home.
Important Case Laws on Jurisdiction of Juvenile Justice Boards
1. Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2011) 14 SCC 398
Facts:
The case challenged the constitutionality of provisions allowing trial of juveniles (16-18 years) as adults for heinous crimes under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the law but emphasized that the preliminary assessment must be done by the JJB based on the mental and physical capacity of the juvenile and the nature of the offense.
Significance:
It clarified the scope of JJB's jurisdiction to decide whether juveniles should be tried as adults, emphasizing a fair, child-centric approach.
2. Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand (2015) 8 SCC 151
Facts:
This case dealt with the procedure to be followed by the JJB in determining whether a juvenile offender aged 16-18 should be tried as an adult.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that JJB has the exclusive jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary inquiry and the regular courts cannot interfere in the decision-making process unless there is a violation of procedure.
Significance:
It reaffirmed that the JJB’s jurisdiction is exclusive and must be respected for juveniles' trials.
3. Lillu & Anr v. State of Haryana (2020) SCC OnLine SC 148
Facts:
The Supreme Court emphasized procedural safeguards during the inquiry by JJB before transferring a case to a criminal court.
Judgment:
The Court held that the JJB must give the juvenile an opportunity to be heard and ensure that the inquiry is conducted fairly, considering the juvenile’s age, mental capacity, and circumstances.
Significance:
It emphasized procedural fairness within the JJB's jurisdiction to protect juvenile rights.
4. Rajendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2017) 8 SCC 734
Facts:
The case dealt with whether the JJB has jurisdiction to take cognizance of offenses committed by juveniles and whether the police or courts can take over.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that JJB alone has exclusive jurisdiction to take cognizance of offenses committed by juveniles, and the police or magistrate should not interfere.
Significance:
It reinforced the exclusive jurisdiction of the JJB over juveniles in conflict with law.
5. In Re: A Juvenile (2005) 3 SCC 48
Facts:
In this case, the issue was whether juveniles could be tried for serious offenses and what the role of JJB was.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court stated that the JJB’s jurisdiction includes ensuring the child’s welfare and rehabilitation, and trials must focus on reform rather than punishment.
Significance:
It highlighted the rehabilitative and protective jurisdiction of the JJB rather than a punitive approach.
Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Issue | Key Principle | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India | Preliminary assessment for heinous crimes | JJB’s child-friendly assessment | Upheld JJB’s jurisdiction for trial as adult |
| Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand | Exclusive jurisdiction of JJB | JJB’s exclusive jurisdiction | Regular courts cannot interfere |
| Lillu & Anr v. State of Haryana | Fair procedure in preliminary inquiry | Procedural fairness | JJB must ensure fair hearing |
| Rajendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh | Jurisdiction of JJB vs Police | Exclusive jurisdiction of JJB | Only JJB to take cognizance |
| In Re: A Juvenile | Focus on rehabilitation | Welfare-oriented jurisdiction | Emphasized reform over punishment |
Additional Notes:
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is the primary statute regulating JJBs.
The Act aims to balance welfare of the child and protection of society.
JJBs are multidisciplinary bodies including a judicial magistrate and social workers, ensuring holistic decisions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments