Trial of a 17-Year-Old as Adult Quashed for Lack of Proper Psychological Test: Allahabad High Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines for JJ Boards and Children’s Courts

“IQ, EQ, and Emotional Maturity Are Indispensable to Determine Adult Trial — Boards Cannot Decide on Gut Feeling …. Psychological Evaluation Is Not a Ritual – It Must Be Real, Rigorous, and Relevant”: Allahabad High Court Issues Mandatory Protocol for Assessing Juveniles in Heinous Offences Under JJ Act

In a landmark judgment delivered on October 10, 2025, the Allahabad High Court, while deciding Criminal Revision, has quashed orders of the Juvenile Justice Board and the Children’s Court that declared a 17.5-year-old to be tried as an adult in a murder case under Section 302 IPC, citing gross procedural violations and a perfunctory psychological assessment.

Justice Siddharth, exercising revisional jurisdiction, allowed the revision and issued detailed, mandatory guidelines for all Juvenile Justice Boards and Children’s Courts in Uttar Pradesh to follow during preliminary assessments under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

“Psychological Report Without IQ or EQ Testing Cannot Form Basis for Adult Trial”: High Court Finds Assessment of Juvenile Invalid and Procedurally Deficient

The revisionist, Ayush Shukla, a minor aged 17 years, 6 months and 27 days, was directed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Prayagraj, to be tried as an adult based on a preliminary assessment. The Children’s Court upheld this order. However, the High Court noted that the psychological assessment report did not contain any scientific evaluation, such as IQ (Intelligence Quotient) or EQ (Emotional Intelligence Quotient), nor did it mention the tests performed.

The Court held: “The report of the psychologist does not record any finding as to the revisionist being subjected to any kind of test... It appears that only to make formal compliance of getting report from psychologist, the report was called.”

In the psychologist’s report, the child was described as “immature and did not know consequences of his act,” but no methodology, no psychological tools, and no scoring was explained, making the report scientifically unsound and legally unreliable.

“Section 15 of JJ Act Is Not a Formality – It Decides the Future of a Child”: Court Applies Supreme Court’s Test in Barun Chandra Thakur v. Master Bholu

Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Barun Chandra Thakur v. Master Bholu, Criminal Appeal No. 950 of 2022, the High Court observed:

“The evaluation of ‘mental capacity and ability to understand the consequences’ of the child... can in no way be relegated to the status of a perfunctory and a routine task. The process... should not be taken without conducting a meticulous psychological evaluation.”

The Court noted that children may have cognitive understanding, but whether they can regulate their emotions or resist peer pressure requires emotional intelligence testing—a component entirely missing in the current assessment.

“Expression ‘May’ in Section 15 Becomes Mandatory Where Board Lacks Psychological Expertise”: High Court Elevates Legislative Discretion into Binding Duty

The Court emphasized that while Section 15(1) of the JJ Act uses the expression “may take the assistance of psychologists or other experts,” this must be read as mandatory unless the Board includes a practicing professional in child psychology or psychiatry. Relying again on Barun Chandra Thakur, the Court held:

“Where the Board is not comprising of a practicing professional with a degree in child psychology or child psychiatry, the expression ‘may’ in the proviso to section 15(1) would operate in mandatory form.”

This interpretation ensures that non-experts do not make life-altering decisions about juveniles, such as transferring them to adult courts.

“Absence of National Guidelines Compels Court to Act”: Allahabad High Court Frames Detailed Framework for Preliminary Assessment under JJ Act

Finding that neither the Central Government nor the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) had framed sufficient guidelines despite the Supreme Court’s express direction in Master Bholu, the High Court exercised its constitutional authority to issue binding procedural safeguards.

The Court directed that until legislative action is taken, the following mandatory guidelines will govern all preliminary assessments under Section 15 in the State:

“These guidelines shall be followed by all the Juvenile Justice Boards/Children’s courts while making preliminary assessment of a child under Section 15(1) of the JJ Act, 2015 and it should be reflected in their orders.”

Key Mandatory Directions for Juvenile Justice Boards and Children’s Courts

The guidelines include, inter alia:

• Psychological testing using standardized tools such as Binet Kamat Test, Vineland Social Maturity Scale (VSMS), Bhatiya Battery Test, or similar.

• Report must mention the IQ and EQ of the child, and explain the methodology used.

• Clear findings must be recorded on child’s physical and mental capacity to commit the offence and understand its consequences.

• Mandatory documentation including:

  • Social Investigation Report (SIR) under Section 8(3)(e)

  • Social Background Report (SBR) under Section 13(1)(ii)

  • Individual Care Plan (ICP)

  • Statements of witnesses recorded by Child Welfare Police Officer under Rule 10(5)

• Assessment of criminal history, prior correctional interventions, educational records, and any intellectual disability or mental illness.

• In districts without trained psychologists, services of experts from other districts must be availed under NCPCR guideline 3.5.

“Assessment of a Child Cannot Be Reduced to Mere Questioning”: Allahabad High Court Warns Against Arbitrary Practices in Juvenile Boards

Justice Siddharth observed that in many districts:

“The Juvenile Justice Board and the Children's Court have not found any psychologist within their jurisdiction... Hence they decided the issue of preliminary assessment on mere questioning of the child.”

The Court rejected this approach and ordered that services of trained professionals must be sourced from other districts if unavailable locally, citing NCPCR Guideline 3.5.

Impugned Orders Quashed and Case Remanded for Fresh Assessment

The High Court held that both the:

• Order of the Juvenile Justice Board dated 04.12.2020, and

• Order of the Children’s Court dated 30.11.2023

were not in accordance with law, and accordingly:

“The preliminary assessment of the present child in conflict with law requires assessment afresh by J.J. Board, as contemplated under section 15(1) of the JJ Act, 2015.”

The Court remanded the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board for fresh assessment strictly in accordance with the detailed guidelines issued.

Registrar (Compliance) Directed to Circulate Judgment to All Juvenile Justice Boards and Children’s Courts in U.P.

The Court directed:

“Let a copy of this order be communicated to all the J.J.Boards/Children's courts in the State for necessary compliance by Registrar (Compliance), within two weeks.”

This ensures that the guidelines gain immediate operational force across the entire state and help prevent similar violations in future.

This judgment by the Allahabad High Court marks a watershed moment in juvenile justice jurisprudence, ensuring that adolescents are not tried as adults without a scientifically rigorous and legally sound assessment of their mental and emotional maturity.

By making psychological evaluations a substantive process rather than a box-ticking exercise, the Court has aligned Indian juvenile law with global standards of child protection and the constitutional mandate of fairness.

Date of Decision: October 10, 2025