Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a reference made by the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Bhopal as to “Whether the trial of a juvenile accused of offences under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) investigated by National Investigation Agency (NIA) is to be conducted by the Special Court under the NIA Act or the Children’s Court under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act),” a single-judge bench of Sanjay Dwivedi, J., affirmed that the Children’s Court remains the sole competent forum for the trial of a juvenile accused even for heinous offences under scheduled Acts like UAPA. The Court reinforced the doctrine that “beneficial legislations must be interpreted to advance their objective and not frustrate it”.
Factual Matrix
The instant matter arose from a reference made by the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Bhopal, regarding the proper forum to try Sessions Trial No. 187/2024 (State v. Sayed Meer Hussain), pending against a juvenile in conflict with law. The juvenile was charged under Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), Explosive Substances Act, Railways Act, Public Property (Prevention of Damage) Act, and notably, Sections 16(b), 18, 25, 38 and 39 of the UAPA, a scheduled Act under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008.
Initially, the case was investigated and charge-sheeted by the NIA, pending before the Special Judge (NIA Act). However, after an application was made by the juvenile, it was determined that he was under 18 at the time of the incident. Consequently, the matter was transferred to the Juvenile Justice Board, which, after preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the JJ Act, decided that the juvenile was to be tried as an adult and transferred the matter under Section 18(3) to the Children’s Court notified under Section 25 of the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005.
Moot Point
Whether a juvenile, who is to be tried as an adult under the JJ Act, can be tried by a Special Court designated under the NIA Act, or whether the jurisdiction lies exclusively with the Children’s Court constituted under the JJ Act?
Parties’ Contentions
The counsel for NIA contended that the NIA Act is a special legislation that overrides the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. It was contended that as per Sections 11 and 13 of the NIA Act, all scheduled offences must be tried by Special Courts designated by the Central Government. It was argued that the seriousness and national security implications of the UAPA offences demand trial before the Special Court under the NIA Act.
However, the Amicus Curiae contended that the JJ Act, being a later and special legislation dealing with children, has an overriding effect due to the non-obstante clause in Section 1(4) which explicitly states that the Act applies to “all matters concerning children in conflict with law,” including “prosecution, penalty or imprisonment, rehabilitation and social re-integration,” thereby encompassing the present situation. It was further asserted that Section 18(3) of the JJ Act mandates that upon determination of the need to try a juvenile as an adult, the matter must be transferred to the Children’s Court.
Court’s Observation
The Court noted that Section 1(4) of the JJ Act contains a sweeping non-obstante clause stating that “notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force,” the Act applies to all matters concerning children in conflict with law. The Court emphasised that this clause is “clarificatory, illustrative and unambiguous in nature reflecting the intention of legislature.”
The Court noted that in contrast to Section 1(4) of the JJ Act, Section 13 of the NIA Act overrides only the Criminal Procedure Code, not “any other law,” thus lacking the broader sweep of Section 1(4) of the JJ Act.
The Court reiterated the beneficial and remedial nature of the JJ Act. The Court referred to Partap Singh v. State of Jharkhand, (2005) 3 SCC 551 and noted that the JJ Act is aimed at rehabilitation and protection of juveniles and must be interpreted in a manner that advances the cause of the legislation.
“It is a beneficial legislation aimed at to make available the benefit of the Act to the neglected or delinquent juveniles and that it was a settled law that interpretation of the statute of a beneficial legislation must be to advance the cause of legislation to the benefit for whom it is made and not to frustrate the intendment of the legislation.”
The Court cited Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 13 SCC 1, and applied the maxim leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant, i.e., later laws abrogate earlier contrary laws and asserted that the JJ Act, being later in time and more specific in application to juveniles, must prevail over the NIA Act.
The Court stated that the Children’s Court under Section 25 of the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, is designated by the State Government (in concurrence with the Chief Justice) and is competent to try such cases when a juvenile is tried as an adult under Section 18(3) of the JJ Act.
Court’s Decision
The Court held that the JJ Act overrides the NIA Act, in cases involving juveniles who are to be tried as adults, including those accused under scheduled offences of the NIA Act. Therefore, the Court held that the jurisdiction to try the juvenile shall vest in the Children’s Court, and not in the Special Court designated under the NIA Act.
“When the FIR is registered under a Scheduled Act prescribed under the NIA Act and a juvenile has been directed to be tried as an adult by the Children’s Court, then the jurisdiction to try the case would vest in the Children’s Court and not in the Special Judge under the NIA Act.”
[In Reference v. Memo No. 454/2024 Bhopal Dated 23/11/2024, Misc. Criminal Case No. 1133/2025, Decided on 19-05-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Shri Anil Khare, Senior Advocate with Shri A.J. Mathew, Counsel for the Amicus Curiae
Shri Deepesh Joshi, Special Public Prosecutor, Counsel for the National Investigation Agency
