Vikas Sangwan v. the State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

Delhi HC8 Jul 2025CRL.A./193/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Juvenile Justice Board preliminary assessment Section 15(1) JJ Act 2015; uniform procedure for JJBs; suo motu reference answered after NCPCR/SCPCR guidelines; Barun Chandra Thakur vs. Master Bholu (2023) 12 SCC 401 relied upon; correctness of guidelines left unexamined; intervenor's flexibility/modulation plea left open; Delhi High Court, 08.07.2025, Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar JJ; CRL.REF. 3/2016, CRL.A. 193/2018, CRL.REV.P. 696/2018; disposed.

What did the court decide?

The suo motu reference/petition is disposed of, the reference standing answered in view of the NCPCR and SCPCR guidelines framed pursuant to Barun Chandra Thakur; nothing survives in the petition. ¶¶26

Vikas Sangwan Vs the State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The suo motu reference/petition is disposed of, the reference standing answered in view of the NCPCR and SCPCR guidelines framed pursuant to Barun Chandra Thakur; nothing survives in the petition.

¶¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether a uniform procedure may be adopted by all Juvenile Justice Boards while conducting the preliminary assessment under Section 15(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

¶¶14

Court's answer

In view of the guidelines framed by the NCPCR and SCPCR pursuant to the Supreme Court's judgment in Barun Chandra Thakur, the present reference stands answered and nothing survives in the instant petition.

¶¶19

Ratio / Principle

Since the guidelines have already been drawn, the Court has not gone into the correctness or otherwise of the said guidelines; any person aggrieved by them remains free to take necessary steps in accordance with law.

¶¶22

Key takeaways

The Court expressly declined to answer the intervenor's submission that the NCPCR/SCPCR guidelines cannot be applied across the board in all situations and must be capable of modulation according to facts; it observed the intervenor may make such suggestions to the NCPCR and SCPCR.obiter¶¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench of the Delhi High Court (Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, JJ.) disposed of a suo motu reference (CRL.REF. 3/2016, with connected CRL.A. 193/2018 and CRL.REV.P. 696/2018 filed by Vikas Sangwan) taken up on a letter from an Additional District Judge seeking a uniform procedure for Juvenile Justice Boards conducting the preliminary assessment under Section 15(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Relying on the Supreme Court's direction in Barun Chandra Thakur vs. Master Bholu & Anr., (2023) 12 SCC 401, that the NCPCR and SCPCR frame guidelines to facilitate such assessments, and noting that such guidelines had since been framed, the Court held that the reference stands answered and nothing survives in the petition. The Court expressly refrained from examining the correctness of the guidelines, leaving aggrieved persons free to take steps in accordance with law, and declined to decide the intervenor's plea that the guidelines be modifiable according to the facts of each case, observing she may make suggestions to the NCPCR and SCPCR. The petition was disposed of accordingly.

¶1

$~13 to 15

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

CRL.A. 193/2018 VIKAS SANGWAN .....Appellant Through: Mr. Rahul Sharma, and Mr. Pranav Dixit, Advocates. versus

¶4

THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP for the State with Ms. Divya Yadav and Mr. Lalit Luthra, Advocates with SI Sachin.

¶5

¶6

CRL.REF. 3/2016 COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rahul Sharma, and Mr. Pranav Dixit, Advocates. Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Senior Advocate ( Amicus Curiae ) with Mr. Sanjeevi Seshadri Advocate. versus STATE .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP for the State with Ms. Divya Yadav and Mr. Lalit Luthra, Advocates. Ms. Vrinda Grover and Ms. Devika Tulsiani, Advocates for the intervenor [HAQ Cetnre for Child Rights]. 15 CRL.REV.P. 696/2018 VIKAS SANGWAN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rahul Sharma, and Mr. Pranav Dixit, Advocates.

¶7

This is a digitally signed order.

¶8

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/07/2025 at 11:10:49

¶9

versus

¶10

THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP for the State with Ms. Divya Yadav and Mr. Lalit Luthra, Advocates with Inspector Viveka Nand, Police Station Prashant Vihar.

¶11

CORAM:

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

¶13

O R D E R % 08.07.2025

¶14

Pursuant to a letter dated 14.03.2014 received from Dr. Kamini Lao, learned Additional District Judge-2, North-West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi, the instant petition was taken up for hearing. A perusal of paragraph 8 would indicate that the decision of this Court was sought so that a uniform procedure may be adopted by all Juvenile Justice Boards [“ JJBs” ] while conducting preliminary assessment under Section 15(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 [“ the Act ”].

¶15

During the pendency of the present matter before this Court, the same issue arose before the Apex Court in Barun Chandra Thakur vs. Master Bholu & Anr. , (2023) 12 SCC 401 . The Apex Court directed the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights [“ NCPCR ”] and State Commission for Protection of Child Rights [“ SCPCR ”] to issue guidelines or directions to facilitate the Boards to make a preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Act. Paragraphs 91 and 92 of Barun Chandra Thakur (supra) are reproduced as under:-

¶16

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/07/2025 at 11:10:49

¶17

“91. Before concluding, we may indicate that the task of preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the 2015 Act is a delicate task with requirement of expertise and has its own implications as regards trial of the case. In this view of the matter, it appears expedient that appropriate and specific guidelines in this regard are put in place. Without much elaboration, we leave it open for the Central Government and the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights and the State Commission for Protection of Child Rights to consider issuing guidelines or directions in this regard which may assist and facilitate the Board in making the preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the 2015 Act.

¶18

92. We also make it clear that any observations made in our order which may be touching the merits of the case were only for the purpose of deciding these appeals and the same would in no way influence the Board or the Children's Court or the High Court. They may proceed to decide the matters objectively on merits in accordance, with law.”

¶19

Pursuant to the said judgment, guidelines have been framed by the NCPCR and SCPCR. In view of the aforenoted, the present reference stands answered, and nothing survives in the instant petition. 4. Ms. Vrinda Grover, learned counsel appearing for the interveners, submits that these are only guidelines and they cannot be applied across the board in all situations and that adequate provisions must be made so that they can be modulated according to the facts and situation.

¶20

This Court need not answer this question in the present reference.

¶21

It is always open for Ms. Grover to make suggestions to the NCPCR and to the SCPCR to take into account the suggestions given by her, for including a provision giving the leeway to the Boards to tailor it according to the facts of the case.

¶22

It is made clear that since the guidelines have already been drawn, this Court has not gone into the correctness or otherwise of the said guidelines. It is always open for any person aggrieved by the

¶23

¶24

guidelines to take necessary steps in accordance with law.

¶25

We express our gratitude to the learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. Dayan Krishnan, learned senior counsel and Mr. Sanjeevi Seshadri, learned counsel for assisting this Court.

¶26

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶27

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.

¶28

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

¶29

JULY 8, 2025/ AK / VA

¶30

Vikas Sangwan v. the State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikas Sangwan v. the State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ircon International Ltd. Vs M/S Pcl Brahmaputra Consortium Ltd. (Jv) & Anr.

Arsalan Feroze Ahenger Vs National Investigation Agency

Sky Cable Industries & Anr. Vs M/S Kkm Overseas Private Limited

Vikas Sangwan Vs the State ( Govt of NCT of Delhi)

Court on Its Own Motion Vs State

Sonu Vs State NCT of Dlehi and Anr.