Adolescents Losing Innocence Due To TV, Internet & Social Media; Govt Helpless As Nature Of Technology Is Uncontrollable: Allahabad HC

A bench of Justice Siddharth made these observations while allowing a criminal revision filed by a juvenile challenging an order of the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the POCSO Court, Kaushambi, that he be tried as an adult in an alleged case of consensual physical relationship with a minor girl.

"There is nothing on record to indicate that the revisionist is a predator on the prowl and is prone to repeating the offence without any provocation…Merely because he committed a heinous crime he cannot be put to par with an adult when his social exposure was also found to be deficient by the psychologist", the single judge noted as he directed that the revisionist be tried as a juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board.

Dealing with the revision plea, the Court took note of the psychological assessment report wherein it was found that the revisionist, a 16-year-old boy, had an IQ of 66. This IQ would place him in the 'borderline' category of intellectual functioning, the court noted.

The court further noted that, based on the Senguine Form Board Test, his mental age was assessed to be just six years. The Court also took into account the findings of the report, which observed some difficulty in his social domains, and it noted poor academic performance as well as social interaction.

Against this backdrop, Justice Siddharth remarked thus:

"This court finds that the report of psychologist was in favour of the revisionist. In the report it was clearly mentioned that the mental age of revisionist was six years only when he was above 16 years of age…From the BKT IQ categories…the revisionist with score of 62 comes in borderline category which is even below the category of low / below average".

The Court also noted that when the revisionist indulged in a physical relationship with the victim, he was about 14 years of age. It also factored that the administration of abortion medicine to the victim was not at his sole discretion, and rather, two others were also involved in the decision.

Importantly, the bench stressed that under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act, the Board must conduct a proper "preliminary assessment" based on four parameters: (i) mental capacity, (ii) physical capacity to commit the heinous offence, (iii) ability to understand consequences of the offence, and (iv) circumstances of the offence.

In this context, the Court pointed out that although the case involved a heinous offence and the revisionist was over 16 years old at the time of its commission, the Juvenile Justice Board and the Appellate Court had failed to provide the list of witnesses, documents, and the final report to the revisionist or his guardians, as required by law.

This, the Court said, violated the procedure laid down under Section 15 of the Act and Rules 10 and 10-A.

"The Board as well as the Appellate Court have decided the case without any application of mind and contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder", the Court observed.

At this juncture, the Court also added that merely committing a heinous offence does not automatically warrant trying a juvenile as an adult.

The single judge further noted that even though the psychologist's report was in favour of the revisionist, the same was ignored merely on the ground that the offence was heinous.

"The 'Nirbhaya case' was an exception and not a general rule and all juveniles cannot be subjected and tried like adult without proper consideration of the overall social and psychological effects on their psyche", the Court observed.

Consequently, the Court found the orders passed by the courts below to be not justified and thus set them aside.

However, before parting, the Court expressed its agreement with the observations made by the Bombay High Court in its 2019 decision in Mumtaz Ahmed Nasir Khan v. State of Maharashtra that "the television, internet and social-media are having disastrous effects on the impressionable minds of the adolescents and resulting in loss of their innocence at a very early and tender age".

The Single judge also added that the 'nefarious' effects of the visual mediums like television, internet and social-media on adolescents are not being controlled, nor it appears that the government can control the same (to prevent its deleterious effect on the adolescents), due to the uncontrollable nature of technologies involved.