The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B Varale delivered a judgment on 13 July 2026 that clarifies the procedural obligation of Children's Courts under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015.
The case arose from an incident in October 2018 in Haryana where the appellant, then aged sixteen years and six months, was accused of participating in an assault that resulted in the death of a man.
Because the appellant was above sixteen years of age and the alleged offence was classified as heinous, the Juvenile Justice Board conducted a preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Act.
The Board concluded that the appellant possessed the mental and physical capacity to commit the offence and transferred the matter to the Children's Court under Section 18(3) for trial as an adult.
Upon receipt of the record, the Children's Court directly proceeded with a sessions trial without first passing a reasoned order under Section 19(1) of the Act.
The Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to fourteen years of rigorous imprisonment.
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana affirmed the conviction and sentence.
Before the Supreme Court the appellant contended that the Children's Court had failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of Section 19(1) before commencing the trial.
The bench observed that Section 19(1) imposes a determinative procedural step that must be satisfied before any further proceedings, whether a sessions trial or a summons case, can be undertaken.
In the absence of compliance with Section 19(1) the entire trial is vitiated, leaving the Court with no option but to set aside the conviction.
The bench relied on the precedent of Thirumoorthy v State 2024 where a similar non‑compliance with mandatory provisions of the Act led to the setting aside of a conviction.
The Court issued a direction to all Children's Courts across the country that upon receiving records pursuant to transfer or committal under Section 18(3) the first duty after taking cognizance is to pass a reasoned order under Section 19(1) upon due assessment of the child in conflict with law.
The appeal was allowed, the conviction recorded by the Children's Court was declared unsustainable, and the appellant was acquitted of the charges.
This decision reinforces the mandatory nature of the reasoned order requirement and underscores that procedural non‑compliance under the Juvenile Justice Act cannot be cured by a subsequent substantive finding.