Manish Kumar v. Union of India

The constitutional validity of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 — specifically its provisions allowing a juvenile aged between 16 and 18 years to be tried as an adult for heinous offences — was challenged. The Act was enacted in the wake of the Nirbhaya gang rape case (2012) where one of the accused was a juvenile aged 17. The petitioner argued that treating any juvenile as an adult for trial purposes was unconstitutional and contrary to India's obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the JJ Act 2015's provisions for trying 16–18 year olds as adults for heinous offences. The Court held that the classification between under-16 and 16–18 juveniles is a reasonable classification based on cognitive and moral development — those above 16 have greater capacity to understand the consequences of their actions. The safeguards built into the Act — the mandatory preliminary assessment by the JJB, the requirement of expert opinion on mental and physical capacity, and the requirement of Children's Court trial rather than regular criminal courts — adequately protect the juvenile's rights. The Act does not mandate adult trial for all 16–18 year olds — it creates a process for case-by-case assessment.

Manish Kumar (2021) settled the constitutional validity of the most controversial provision of the Juvenile Justice Act 2015 — enacted in the wake of Nirbhaya. It confirmed that India's juvenile justice framework can accommodate the trial of 16–18 year olds as adults for heinous offences while maintaining child-protective safeguards. The case is essential reading for practitioners working in juvenile justice, criminal law, and child rights.