Mr. Counsel, the Juvenile Justice Board conducted a preliminary assessment under Section 15 and found that your client should be tried as an adult. The matter was transferred to the Children's Court. Why do you say the Children's Court also needs to pass a separate order under Section 19(1)? Isn't the Board's assessment sufficient?

My Lord, the Board's assessment under Section 15 is a preliminary assessment to determine whether the child should be transferred to the Children's Court. However, Section 19(1) is a separate and independent statutory obligation on the Children's Court. Upon receipt of the preliminary assessment, the Children's Court must itself decide whether there is a need for trial of the child as an adult or whether the child should be tried as a child. The Children's Court cannot simply accept the Board's assessment without applying its own mind. This Court in Ajeet Gurjar held that the word 'may' in Section 19(1) must be read as 'shall' and that holding an inquiry under Section 19(1)(i) is not an empty formality. The Children's Court must record reasons, as mandated by Rule 13(6) of the Model Rules. In the present case, no such order was passed, and the trial proceeded without the jurisdictional foundation required by law.

But your client did not raise this objection before the trial court or the High Court. Can he raise it now for the first time in this appeal?

My Lord, a jurisdictional defect goes to the root of the matter and can be raised at any stage. The requirement under Section 19(1) is mandatory and is for the protection of the child. It is not a mere procedural irregularity that can be waived. In Thirumoorthy v. State, this Court held that non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of the JJ Act vitiates the entire trial and quashed the conviction even though the objection may not have been raised earlier. The Act is a beneficial legislation, and its safeguards cannot be compromised. The appellant is entitled to the protection of Section 19(1) regardless of when the objection is raised.

The Children's Court did conduct a trial, and there was evidence of the appellant's guilt. Even if there was non-compliance with Section 19(1), why should the conviction be set aside instead of remanding the matter for compliance?

My Lord, the trial itself was conducted without jurisdiction. The Children's Court proceeded as if it had determined that the appellant should be tried as an adult, but no such determination was ever made. The absence of a determination under Section 19(1) means that the Court did not have the jurisdiction to conduct a sessions trial. The entire trial is a nullity. Moreover, the appellant is now 24 years old, and it would be futile to remand the matter for a fresh determination. A meaningful assessment of his mental capacity at the time of the offence in 2018 is no longer feasible. This Court in Thirumoorthy refused to remand the matter on similar grounds and quashed the conviction. We respectfully submit that the same course should be adopted here.

If the conviction is set aside, what happens to the evidence of the appellant's guilt? Are you saying the appellant should walk free despite the evidence?

My Lord, the appellant is not seeking to re-litigate the merits of the evidence. The appellant is seeking enforcement of the mandatory procedural safeguards under the JJ Act, 2015. The Act is a special legislation that provides a protective framework for children in conflict with law. If the procedure mandated by the Act is not followed, the trial is vitiated, and the conviction cannot be sustained, regardless of the evidence. This is not a technicality; it is a fundamental protection afforded to children. In Thirumoorthy, this Court quashed the conviction despite the availability of evidence, holding that the entire proceedings were vitiated due to non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of the JJ Act. We submit that the same principle applies here.

For PetitionerCriminal Premium

Section 19(1) Mandatory Non-Compliance Vitiates Trial — (2026) INSC 692

Section 19(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is mandatory.

Sagar v. State of Haryana — (2026) INSC 692

Core Argument

Section 19(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is mandatory. The Children's Court must pass a reasoned order determining whether the child is to be tried as an adult or as a child. In the absence of such an order, the trial is vitiated and the conviction cannot be sustained.

Key Precedents

Ajeet Gurjar v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023) 15 SCC 678 — Held that the word 'may' in Section 19(1) must be read as 'shall' and that holding an inquiry under Section 19(1)(i) is not an empty formality.
Thirumoorthy v. State (2024) 12 SCC 307 — Held that non-compliance with mandatory provisions of Sections 15 and 19 of the JJ Act vitiates the entire trial and quashed the conviction.
Barun Chandra Thakur v. Master Bholu (2023) 12 SCC 401 — Discussed the serious consequences of trial as an adult versus trial as a child, including sentencing and disqualification.

This framework covers the complete step-by-step argument structure, opening submissions, key precedents to cite, how to distinguish adverse cases, and the exact prayer to draft. Subscribe to access the full courtroom argument framework with precedent mapping...

Premium Argument FrameworkSubscribers Only

Subscribe to unlock the full argument structure — precedent mapping, bench questions, opposition rebuttals, and court-ready prayer clauses.

Already subscribed? Sign in

Argument SimulatorPaid Plans Only

BENCH QUESTION

What distinguishes this case from earlier precedents on the same point?

OPPOSITION COUNTER

The ratio in this case was expressly limited to its facts by the bench itself...

Unlock the Argument Simulator

4 probable bench questions with suggested answers.
4 opposition counters with rebuttal strategies.

Available on Monthly, Annual, 2-Year & 3-Year plans.

Subscribe to Unlock →

Simulated Content — Not Legal Advice: This courtroom argument and all associated bench questions, judicial responses, and simulator outputs are entirely simulated and hypothetical, created for educational and professional training purposes only. They do not represent actual court proceedings, real judicial opinions, or the positions of any judge or party. Do not cite or use this content in any court, tribunal, or legal proceeding without independent verification and adaptation by a qualified advocate. © 2026 Agarawal Associates — apexdigest.in