Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court today (May 20) ruled that the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) has no authority to review its own decisions or adopt a contradictory stance in later proceedings, as the JJB is not vested with any review jurisdiction under the law.

The bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed the judgment while deciding a case where the JJB took into account date of birth while deciding a plea of juvenility (to find out age), however in subsequent proceeding the JJB proceeded to have the opinion of the medical board.

Disapproving of the JJB's decision, the Court observed:

“But there is a more fundamental issue here. In an earlier proceeding being Miscellaneous Case No. 9/2000 arising out of Crime Case No. 11/2000 registered under Section 307 IPC in the Medical College Police Station, Meerut, JJB had 24 accepted the date of birth of respondent No. 2 as 08.09.2003. It is not open to the JJB to say in subsequent proceeding that date of birth of respondent No. 2 is not 08.09.2003 and thereafter proceed to have the opinion of the medical board. If this is permitted, it will amount to reviewing its earlier order. The JJ Act, 2015 confers no such power of review upon the JJB. It is trite law that power of review is either statutorily conferred or by necessary implication. No such power of JJB is traceable under the JJ Act, 2015.”

It was the case where the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) ignored Respondent No. 2's school certificate (showing DOB as 08.09.2003) and relied on a medical report (estimating age as 21 years). The judgment authored by Justice Bhuyan held this was illegal since medical evidence is admissible only in the absence of documentary proof under Section 94(2).

The Court reiterated that the school records carry greater evidentiary value than medical opinions, and ossification tests are subsidiary and cannot override valid school certificates.

The Court thus upheld the High Court's decision to grant bail to Respondent No. 2, noting that there was no evidence indicating his release would pose a threat to himself or society. Although the JJB had conducted a preliminary assessment under Section 15 and recommended that he be tried as an adult, this did not override his statutory right to bail.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Case Title: RAJNI VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 602

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s): Ms. Amita Singh Kalkal, AOR Mr. Devvrat Pradhan, Adv. Ms. Aditi Gupta, Adv. Mr. Prashant Kumar, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :

(For Resp.No.1 In Item No.12) : Mr. Abhinav Rathi, Adv. Dr. Vijendra Singh, AOR Mr. Deepak Goel, Adv. Mr. Shailesh Sharma, Adv.

(For Resp.No.2 In Item No.12) Mr. Anil K Sharma, Adv. Mr. Shivendu Gaur, Adv. Mr. Praveen Chaturvedi, AOR