The Supreme Court has held that a Children’s Court cannot proceed to try a child in conflict with law as an adult without first passing a reasoned order under Section 19(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The Court ruled that this requirement is mandatory and that failure to comply with it vitiates the entire trial, regardless of whether the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) had earlier recommended an adult trial.A Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale observed that the Children’s Court has an independent statutory duty to apply its own mind after receiving the JJB’s preliminary assessment.“Passing of an order under Section 19(1) of the Act is mandatory in nature and without passing an order under Section 19(1), the Children’s Court cannot proceed with the matter further.”Allowing the appeal, the Court set aside the appellant’s conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC and acquitted him after finding that the mandatory procedure under the Juvenile Justice Act had not been followed.BackgroundThe case arose from the murder of a man in Haryana in October 2018. According to the prosecution, the deceased was returning from a village fair with two companions when seven assailants intercepted them on motorcycles. The appellant, who was then about 16½ years old, was claimed to have struck the deceased with an iron pipe while the remaining accused attacked him with knives and other weapons. The victim later succumbed to his injuries.During investigation, the police arrested several accused, recorded disclosure statements, recovered the weapons and motorcycles, and relied upon call detail records to support the prosecution case.Since the appellant was above 16 years of age and was accused of committing a heinous offence, the matter was placed before the Juvenile Justice Board. After conducting a preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act, the Board concluded that the appellant possessed the mental and physical capacity to commit the alleged offence, understood its consequences and should therefore be tried as an adult. The matter was accordingly transferred to the Children’s Court under Section 18(3) of the Act.The Children’s Court proceeded with the trial, convicted the appellant for murder and sentenced him to fourteen years’ rigorous imprisonment. It also directed that he remain in a place of safety until attaining the age of 21 years before being transferred to prison. The Punjab and Haryana High Court later affirmed the conviction.Aggrieved by the conviction the appellant filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.Before the Supreme Court, the appellant raised a legal objection that went to the root of the trial. He argued that although the Juvenile Justice Board had conducted the preliminary assessment under Section 15, the Children’s Court had never independently examined whether he should actually be tried as an adult, as required under Section 19(1) of the Act.Why Section 19(1) of the JJ Act is Mandatory?Examining the scheme of the Juvenile Justice Act, the Supreme Court held that the Children’s Court performs an independent judicial function and cannot simply rely upon the Juvenile Justice Board’s recommendation. Once the Board transfers the matter after its preliminary assessment under Section 15, the Children’s Court must itself decide whether the child should face trial as an adult or be dealt with as a juvenile.The Court, rejected the argument that the word “may” in Section 19(1) makes the exercise discretionary and held that the provision must be read as mandatory because the decision fundamentally changes the nature of the proceedings and the consequences for the child.“Passing of an order under Section 19(1) of the Act is mandatory in nature and without passing an order under Section 19(1), the Children’s Court cannot proceed with the matter further.”The Court explained that if the Children’s Court decides that the child should be tried as an adult, it must follow the procedure applicable to a Sessions trial. However, if it concludes that an adult trial is unnecessary, it must itself function as the Juvenile Justice Board and conduct the inquiry in accordance with the procedure prescribed for summons cases under the Act.The Bench observed that these two procedures are fundamentally different, making the determination under Section 19(1) indispensable before any trial can begin.The Court also highlighted that the choice between an adult trial and a juvenile inquiry has far-reaching consequences for the child. If tried as a juvenile, the maximum period for which a child can be sent to a special home is three years, along with various rehabilitative measures contemplated under the Juvenile Justice Act. In contrast, if tried as an adult, the Children’s Court can impose substantially higher punishments, subject to the statutory prohibition against death penalty or life imprisonment without the possibility of release.The Bench observed that bypassing Section 19(1) creates a real possibility that a child who ought to have been treated as a juvenile could instead be subjected to an adult criminal trial and a much harsher punishment.The Court relied upon its earlier decisions in Ajeet Gurjar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Barun Chandra Thakur v. Master Bholu and Thirumoorthy v. State, all of which recognised that compliance with Sections 15 and 19 of the Juvenile Justice Act is mandatory before a child can be tried as an adult.Applying these principles, the Court found that while the Juvenile Justice Board had conducted the preliminary assessment under Section 15 and transferred the matter for an adult trial, the Children’s Court never passed the mandatory order under Section 19(1).The Bench held that this omission struck at the very foundation of the proceedings. The Court considered whether the matter could be remanded for fresh consideration. However, it noted that the appellant was now 24 years old and had already undergone more than six years of incarceration. At this stage, it would be impossible to meaningfully assess his mental capacity as it existed at the time of the offence.In these circumstances, the Court held that remanding the matter would serve no useful purpose. It therefore set aside both the conviction and sentence, allowed the appeal, and acquitted the appellant.Before concluding, the Supreme Court issued an important direction to Children’s Courts across the country. It clarified that whenever a case is transferred by a Juvenile Justice Board under Section 18(3), the Children’s Court must first pass a reasoned order under Section 19(1), after independently assessing whether the child should be tried as an adult, before proceeding any further with the case.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (Crl.) NO. 8113/2024)SAGAR VERSUS THE STATE OF HARYANADate of Decision: 13.07.2026Appearance:For Petitioner(s): Mr. Ranbir Singh Kundu, Adv. Ms. Kirti Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Akash, Adv. Mr. Shitanshu Saklani, Adv. Mr. Shubham Mavi, Adv. Mr. Ashish Pandey, AOR Mr. Lakshya Singh, Adv. Mr. Ali Mohammed Khan, Adv.For Respondent(s): Mr. Keshav Mittal, Adv. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Gaj Singh, Adv. Mr. Anuj Sehrawat, Adv. Mr. Sahil Gandass, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Dhull, Adv. Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Adv.(The author of this article, Vatsal Chandra is a Delhi-based Advocate practicing before the courts of Delhi NCR.)