Court Sets Aside Adult Trial Order for Minor in Consensual Case
The Allahabad High Court has overturned the decision of the Juvenile Justice Board and the POCSO Court in Kaushambi, which had earlier directed that a 16-year-old boy be tried as an adult in a case involving a consensual physical relationship with a minor girl. On 24 July 2025, a single bench headed by Justice Siddharth ruled that the teenager must be tried as a juvenile, citing his underdeveloped mental and social capabilities.
Psychological Report Reveals Borderline Intellectual Functioning
The decision was heavily influenced by a psychological evaluation that showed the boy’s IQ to be just 66—placing him in the borderline intellectual functioning category. Despite his physical age being over 16, his mental age was estimated at around six years. The court observed that the juvenile lacked adequate academic and social development and should not be equated with adult offenders.
Justice Siddharth noted, “There is no material on record to suggest that the revisionist is a dangerous individual or likely to reoffend without provocation. The juvenile’s poor academic record and lack of social maturity do not warrant an adult trial.”
Juvenile Justice Board and POCSO Court Pulled Up for Procedural Lapses
In a sharp rebuke to the lower courts, the High Court stated that both the Juvenile Justice Board and the Appellate Court failed to comply with mandatory provisions under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act. The section mandates a preliminary inquiry to assess the child’s physical and mental capacity, awareness of consequences, and surrounding circumstances before ordering an adult trial in heinous crime cases.
The High Court found that no such inquiry had been properly conducted. Furthermore, necessary documentation was reportedly not shared with the juvenile or his guardians, violating procedural fairness.
Court Criticizes the Role of Media and Technology in Juvenile Behaviour
Beyond the legal specifics of the case, Justice Siddharth raised larger societal concerns about the influence of mass media and digital platforms on children. “The television, the internet, and social media are all leading to a calamitous end of innocence among young minds at a very tender age,” he remarked in court.
He warned that the unchecked exposure to adult content and unrealistic portrayals of relationships may be distorting the mental development of children. “The government seems helpless in curbing these forces due to the uncontrollable nature of technology,” the court noted.
Calls for Nuanced Approach to Juvenile Justice
The High Court emphasized that trying juveniles as adults—especially in sensitive and complex cases—must not become the norm. Referring to the Nirbhaya case, Justice Siddharth underlined that exceptions should not dictate routine legal practice. Each juvenile case must be assessed independently, with weight given to psychological and emotional factors.
Broader Debate on Technology’s Role in Shaping Young Minds
This judgment not only affirms the importance of protecting the legal rights of juveniles but also shines a spotlight on the broader implications of digital exposure. With adolescents increasingly shaped by online content and social media trends, the verdict is a timely reminder of the urgent need for policy interventions to safeguard children’s mental and emotional well-being in a rapidly digitalising society.