Child in Conflict with Law Cannot Be Tried Jointly with an Adult Accused Merely Because He is Tried 'As an Adult: Delhi High Court

A Child Does Not Become an Adult Merely Because He is Tried 'As an Adult - Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling in CCL ‘K’ v. The State (NCT of Delhi), held that a child in conflict with law cannot be subjected to a joint trial with an adult accused. The Court set aside the Trial Court’s order dated May 23, 2022, which had allowed a joint trial of a minor and an adult accused in a murder case. Justice Anish Dayal observed that Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act) expressly prohibits joint proceedings of a child with an adult, even if the child is being tried "as an adult."
The case arose from an incident on September 26, 2016, at Government Boys Senior Secondary School, Nangloi, Delhi, where Mukesh Kumar, a teacher, was fatally attacked. Two students of Class 12, Vivek Kumar (19 years old) and CCL ‘K’ (17 years old), were accused of the crime. Investigation revealed that the attack was allegedly in retaliation for the removal of CCL ‘K’ from the school register due to absenteeism.
Following the registration of an FIR under Sections 186, 353, 302, and 34 IPC, the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) conducted a preliminary assessment and transferred CCL ‘K’ to be tried "as an adult" in the Children’s Court. The Sessions Court also transferred the case of Vivek Kumar (adult accused) to the Children’s Court, leading to a joint trial. CCL ‘K’ challenged this decision before the Delhi High Court, arguing that Section 23 of the JJ Act prohibits joint proceedings of a child and an adult accused.
Addressing the central legal issue, the High Court examined Section 23 of the JJ Act, 2015, which explicitly states: “Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 223 of CrPC or any other law, there shall be no joint proceedings of a child alleged to be in conflict with law, with a person who is not a child.”
Interpreting this provision, the Court categorically held that a child cannot be subjected to a joint trial with an adult, even if the child is being tried ‘as an adult.’ The judgment observed: “The words of the statute are clear and unambiguous. The legislature has expressly barred joint proceedings of a CCL with an adult accused. Any attempt to interpret the provision otherwise would render Section 23 of the JJ Act otiose.”
The High Court rejected the Trial Court’s reasoning that since CCL ‘K’ was directed to be tried “as an adult,” he could be tried jointly with an adult accused. Justice Anish Dayal emphasized: “A child does not become an adult de jure merely because he is being tried ‘as an adult.’ The classification exists for procedural purposes and does not alter the fundamental status of the accused as a ‘child in conflict with law.’”
Distinction Between “As an Adult” and “With an Adult”
One of the key arguments raised by the State was that a child being tried ‘as an adult’ should not be treated differently from an adult accused. The Court rejected this contention, making a crucial distinction between “as an adult” and “with an adult.”
Justice Anish Dayal stated: “Section 18(3) of the JJ Act permits a child to be tried ‘as an adult’ in a Children’s Court. However, nowhere does the statute provide that a child can be tried ‘with an adult.’ The difference between these two phrases is not merely semantic but substantive. The legislative intent is clear—while a child may undergo an adult-like trial, he cannot be subjected to a joint proceeding with an actual adult accused.”
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in CCL A v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020), the Court reiterated: “Even when a child is sent-up for trial as an adult before a Children’s Court, the child does not become an adult or ‘major’. The categorization is only for procedural purposes and does not change the status of the accused as a child in conflict with law.”
Juvenile Justice System: Offender-Oriented, Not Offence-Oriented
The Court underscored the purpose of the Juvenile Justice Act, which is offender-oriented rather than offence-oriented. Citing Mumtaz Ahmed Nasir Khan v. State of Maharashtra (2018 SCC OnLine Bom 15847), the Court reiterated that:
“While the trial in a regular court is offence-oriented, the trial in a juvenile court is offender-oriented. The juvenile justice system is not designed to punish but to rehabilitate.”
The Court also referred to Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand (2005) 3 SCC 551, emphasizing that juvenile justice laws must be interpreted in a manner that promotes the reformation and reintegration of young offenders.
CCL ‘K’ argued that a joint trial with an adult accused violated fundamental principles of juvenile justice, including the right to privacy and the principle of non-stigmatization. The Court agreed, stating:
“Section 3(viii) of the JJ Act emphasizes the principle of non-stigmatizing semantics, and Section 3(xi) guarantees the right to privacy and confidentiality. Conducting a joint trial not only violates these principles but also exposes the child to undue prejudice.”
The Court further noted that joint trials could lead to unfair treatment, as adult co-accused are subject to harsher legal provisions. Citing Babu Lal v. Hazari Lal Kishori Lal (1982) 1 SCC 525, the Court observed:
“The term ‘proceeding’ is much broader than ‘trial.’ Section 23 of the JJ Act prohibits joint proceedings of a child with an adult accused at all stages, not just during trial.”
The Delhi High Court allowed the revision petition, making the following key rulings:
The Trial Court’s order dated May 23, 2022, permitting a joint trial was set aside. CCL ‘K’ would be tried separately in the Children’s Court, as mandated under Section 23 of the JJ Act, 2015. The case of Vivek Kumar (the adult co-accused) would proceed separately in the Sessions Court.
This landmark ruling reaffirms the fundamental principles of juvenile justice and ensures that minors, even when tried "as adults," are accorded the protections guaranteed under the JJ Act. The judgment establishes a crucial precedent against joint trials of children and adult accused, ensuring that the juvenile justice system remains reformative rather than punitive.
Justice Anish Dayal concluded: “The law is unambiguous in its mandate. A child in conflict with law must be dealt with separately from an adult accused. Any deviation from this principle would not only violate statutory provisions but also undermine the very foundation of juvenile justice.”
 

Date of Decision: March 3, 2025