THE

TEAM CODE-K

THE 12TH ANNUAL ADV.B.P. APTE MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOCK TRIAL, MOOT COURT &
JUDGEMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2024

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF MAYAPRADESH

UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE BINDIAN CONSTITUTION

WRIT PETITION NO.:-______/2024

IN THE MATTER OF

MASTER DHOLU (PETITIONER)

VERSUS
STATE OF MAYAPRADESH (RESPONDENT)

CLUBBED WITH REVISION APPLICATION U/S 102 OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT

REVISION APPLICATION:-____/2024
IN THE MATTER OF

MASTER DHOLU (REVISIONIST)

VERSUS
STATE OF MAYAPRADESH (OPPOSITE PARTIES)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

COUNSELS APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
THE 12TH ANNUAL ADV.B.P. APTE MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOCK TRIAL, MOOT COURT &

JUDGEMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2024

INDEX

INIDEXINDEX

SR.NO TOPICS PAGE NO.

1.
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

2.
STATEMENT OF ISSUES

3.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

(1) Whether section 15 of the JJ Act is in violation of the

principle of equality as guaranteed by the Constitution of
Bindia?

(2) Whether the transfer to the Children’s

Court effectively deny juveniles the
rehabilitative measures available under
the JJ Act, thereby defeating the objective
of juvenile justice?

(3) Whether the Preliminary Assessment conducted was in

violation of provisions of JJ Act and Rules as outside
assistance was not taken for psychological assessment?

(4) Whether the scope of revision court u/s 102 of JJ Act is

wide enough to call into question the type of tests used by
the Board member for conducting the psychological
assessment?
4.
PRAYER

2
WRITTEN SUBMIISION ON BEHALF OF PETITONER & REVISIONIST
THE 12TH ANNUAL ADV.B.P. APTE MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOCK TRIAL, MOOT COURT &

JUDGEMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2024

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

A. STATUES REFERRED

B. BOOKS REFERRED

C. INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS

D. LEGAL DATABASES REFERRED

3
WRITTEN SUBMIISION ON BEHALF OF PETITONER & REVISIONIST
THE 12TH ANNUAL ADV.B.P. APTE MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOCK TRIAL, MOOT COURT &

JUDGEMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2024

E. JUDICIAL DECISIONS

SR.NO CASE LAWS CITATIONS

4
WRITTEN SUBMIISION ON BEHALF OF PETITONER & REVISIONIST
 THE 12TH ANNUAL ADV.B.P. APTE MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOCK TRIAL, MOOT COURT &

JUDGEMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2024

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE 1

WHETHER SECTION 15 OF THE JJ ACT IS IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLE

OF EQUALITY AS GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF BINDIA?

ISSUE 2

WHETHER THE TRANSFER TO THE CHILDREN’S COURT EFFECTIVELY

DENY JUVENILES THE REHABILITATIVE MEASURES AVAILABLE UNDER
THE JJ ACT, THEREBY DEFEATING THE OBJECTIVE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE?

ISSUE 3

WHETHER THE PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT CONDUCTED WAS IN

VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF JJ ACT AND RULES AS OUTSIDE ASSISTANCE
WAS NOT TAKEN FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT?

ISSUE 4

WHETHER THE SCOPE OF REVISION COURT U/S 102 OF JJ ACT IS WIDE

ENOUGH TO CALL INTO QUESTION THE TYPE OF TESTS USED BY THE
BOARD MEMBER FOR CONDUCTING THE PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT?

5
WRITTEN SUBMIISION ON BEHALF OF PETITONER & REVISIONIST
 THE 12TH ANNUAL ADV.B.P. APTE MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOCK TRIAL, MOOT COURT &

JUDGEMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2024

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1- WHETHER SECTION 15 OF THE JJ ACT IS IN VIOLATION OF THE

PRINCIPLE OF EQUALITY AS GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION OF
BINDIA?

ARGUMENTS: -

6
WRITTEN SUBMIISION ON BEHALF OF PETITONER & REVISIONIST
 THE 12TH ANNUAL ADV.B.P. APTE MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOCK TRIAL, MOOT COURT &

JUDGEMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2024

2- WHETHER THE TRANSFER TO THE CHILDREN’S COURT EFFECTIVELY

DENY JUVENILES THE REHABILITATIVE MEASURES AVAILABLE UNDER
THE JJ ACT, THEREBY DEFEATING THE OBJECTIVE OF JUVENILE
JUSTICE?

ARGUMENTS: -

7
WRITTEN SUBMIISION ON BEHALF OF PETITONER & REVISIONIST
 THE 12TH ANNUAL ADV.B.P. APTE MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOCK TRIAL, MOOT COURT &

JUDGEMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2024

3- WHETHER THE PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT CONDUCTED WAS IN

VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF JJ ACT AND RULES AS OUTSIDE
ASSISTANCE WAS NOT TAKEN FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT?

ARGUMENTS: - It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble High Court of Maya Pradesh by
the counsel on behalf of the petitioner, that the Preliminary Assessment conducted was in
violation of provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act 2015 (hereinafter referred to as JJ Act
2015) and Juvenile Justice Model Rules, 2016, (hereinafter referred to as Model Rules.) as
outside assistance was not taken for psychological assessment, The petitioner submits that the
Preliminary Assessment conducted by a Board member is flawed, biased, and lacks the
objectivity prescribed by the law.

The argument for the present issue is divided into two folds i.e. first- The Word "May" in
Section 15 Should be Read as "Shall" and second Violation of Section 15 of the JJ Act, 2015,
and Rule 10 of the Model Rules, 2016:- Insufficient Psychological Evaluation

3.1 The Word "May" in Section 15 Should be Read as "Shall"

1. Your Lordships, the Counsel on behalf of the petitioner in their first fold of arguments
will establish, how the lack of outside assistance of an expert in the preliminary
assessment process violates the objective of section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
The verbatim of Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act is 1,- “Section 15- (1) In case of
a heinous offence alleged to have been committed by a child, who has completed or is
above the age of sixteen years, the Board shall conduct a preliminary assessment with
regard to his mental and physical capacity to commit such offence, ability to
understand the consequences of the offence and the circumstances in which he
allegedly committed the offence, and may pass an order in accordance with the
provisions of subsection (3) of section 18: Provided that for such an assessment, the
Board may take the assistance of experienced psychologists or psycho-social workers or
other experts. Explanation. —For the purposes of this section, it is clarified that
preliminary assessment is not a trial, but is to assess the capacity of such child to commit
and understand the consequences of the alleged offence. (2) Where the Board is satisfied
on preliminary assessment that the matter should be disposed of by the Board, then the
Board shall follow the procedure, as far as may be, for trial in summons case under the

8
WRITTEN SUBMIISION ON BEHALF OF PETITONER & REVISIONIST
 THE 12TH ANNUAL ADV.B.P. APTE MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOCK TRIAL, MOOT COURT &

JUDGEMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2024

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Provided that the order of the Board to dispose of the
matter shall be appealable under sub-section (2) of section 101: Provided further that the
assessment under this section shall be completed within the period specified in section
14”
2. It is pertinent to note that, Section 15 of the JJ Act lays down the procedure for the
Preliminary Assessment of a child between the ages of 16 to 18, accused of committing a
heinous offence. The purpose of this assessment is to evaluate the child’s mental and
physical capacity to commit the offence, the child’s ability to understand the
consequences of the offence, and the circumstances in which the alleged offence was
committed.
3. The petitioner submits that Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015, and Rule 10A of the Juvenile Justice Model Rules, 2016, which state
that the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) "may" take the assistance of psychologists,
psychosocial workers, or other experts, must be interpreted in light of the child’s best
interest and natural justice principles.
The verbatim of Model Rule is reproduced below 2:-“10 A. Preliminary assessment
into heinous offences by Board. - (1) The Board shall in the first instance determine
whether the child is of sixteen years of age or above; if not, it shall proceed as per
provisions of section 14 of the Act. (2) For the purpose of conducting a preliminary
assessment in case of heinous offences, the Board may take the assistance of
psychologists or psycho-social workers or other experts who have experience of working
with children in difficult circumstances. A panel of such experts may be made available
by the District Child Protection Unit, whose assistance can be taken by the Board or
could be accessed independently. (3) While making the preliminary assessment, the child
shall be presumed to be innocent unless proved otherwise. (4) Where the Board, after
preliminary assessment under section 15 of the Act, passes an order that there is a need
for trial of the said child as an adult, it shall assign reasons for the same and the copy of
the order shall be provided to the child forthwith”.
4. It is humbly submitted to the Hon’ble High Court of Maya Pradesh that, the Juvenile
Justice Board consist of three members i.e. Board consists of three members,
one is a Judicial Officer First Class and two social workers, one being a woman, though
the term "may" typically suggest discretion, the present case involves the assessment of a
2

9
WRITTEN SUBMIISION ON BEHALF OF PETITONER & REVISIONIST
 THE 12TH ANNUAL ADV.B.P. APTE MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOCK TRIAL, MOOT COURT &

JUDGEMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2024

juvenile's cognitive, emotional, and social capabilities, which require specialized

knowledge and experience. The use of the word "may" in the context of Section 15 must
be read as "shall," making it mandatory for the JJB to involve experts in such
assessments to ensure that an informed and fair decision is made regarding whether the
child should be tried as an adult or not.
5. In the case of Smt. Bachahan Devi & Anr vs. Nagar Nigam, Gorakhpur & Anr3 it was
held that:- “11. The delicate question that remains to be examined is what is the position
in law when both the expression "shall" and "may" are used in the same provision. 12.
Mere use of word ’may’ or ’shall’ is not conclusive. The question whether a particular
provision of a statute is directory or mandatory cannot be resolved by laying down any
general rule of universal application. Such controversy has to be decided by ascertaining
the intention of the Legislature and not by looking at the language in which the
provision is clothed. And for finding out the legislative intent, the Court must examine the
scheme of the Act, the purpose and object underlying the provision, consequences likely
to ensue or inconvenience likely to result if the provision is read one way or the other and
many more considerations relevant to the issue.”
6. Also in the case of M/s Dhampur Sugar Mills ltd vs. State of U.P. & Ors 4, it was held
that:“29. mere use of word may or shall is not conclusive. The question whether a
particular provision of a statute is directory or mandatory cannot be resolved by laying
down any general rule of universal application. Such controversy has to be decided by
ascertaining the intention of the Legislature and not by looking at the language in which
the provision is clothed. And for finding out the legislative intent, the Court must
examine the scheme of the Act, purpose and object underlying the provision,
consequences likely to ensue or inconvenience likely to result if the provision is read one
way or the other and many more considerations relevant to the issue”
7. The reliance on external experts is particularly important in cases like the present one,
where a child between 16 to 18 years of age is at risk of being tried as an adult, thereby
losing the protections available under the juvenile system. The Constitutional right to
life and liberty under Article 21 mandates that such assessments be objective, impartial,
and thorough, which cannot be achieved without the involvement of independent
professionals.

3
Smt. Bachahan Devi & Anr vs. Nagar Nigam, Gorakhpur & Anr civil appeal 998 of 2008
4
M/s Dhampur Sugar Mills ltd vs. State of U.P. & Ors civil appeal 4466 of 2007

10
WRITTEN SUBMIISION ON BEHALF OF PETITONER & REVISIONIST
 THE 12TH ANNUAL ADV.B.P. APTE MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOCK TRIAL, MOOT COURT &

JUDGEMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2024

8. In the present case, the Preliminary Assessment was conducted by one of the Board
member, i.e. Dr. Hari Shyam who is not an independent expert in child psychology.
According to Rule 10(5) of the Model Rules, 2016, the Juvenile Justice Board is
empowered to take assistance from psychologists, psycho-social workers, or other experts
to ensure a fair and objective assessment. It is submitted that the failure to involve an
independent external psychologist not only violates the spirit of the JJ Act but also
undermines the fairness of the process.
9. The intention of the framers of the Juvenile Justice Act is to ensure that the protection of
a child’s rights is of paramount importance. The establishment of the Juvenile Justice
Board serves as a safeguard, ensuring that no child is wrongfully tried or treated as an
adult without a proper and fair assessment. This reflects the underlying principle of the
Act, which is to prioritize the best interests of the child while providing a legal framework
that protects their rights and ensures justice. The Objective of the Juvenile Justice Act,
2015 is To protect the rights of children who are in conflict with the law and ensure that
they are treated in a manner that is consistent with the principles of justice, dignity, and
reformation.
10. In the case of Barun Chandra Thakur vs Master Bholu it was held that:“64. Section 15
and Rule 10A provide that the Board may take the assistance of psychologists,
psychosocial workers, or other experts who had experience of working with children in
difficult circumstances. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the word
‘may’ should be read as ‘may’ only i.e., the Board in its discretion may or may not take
the assistance of such experts whereas on behalf of the respondent, it has been
strenuously contended that the word ‘may’ should be read as ‘shall’ and it should be
mandatory for the Board to take opinion or assistance from such experts before passing
an order of preliminary assessment. This aspect is dealt with at a later stage.”
11. In the present case in the present case, the manner in which the Juvenile Justice Board
conducted the assessment was not in alignment with the intention of the framers and the
objective of the Juvenile Justice Act. The absence of an independent expert for the
psychological assessment violates the core principles of the Act, which aim to ensure a
fair and thorough evaluation of the child’s mental capacity and emotional maturity. This
failure to involve an expert undermines the child’s right to justice and stands in clear
violation of the procedural safeguards intended to protect children in conflict with the
law.

11
WRITTEN SUBMIISION ON BEHALF OF PETITONER & REVISIONIST
 THE 12TH ANNUAL ADV.B.P. APTE MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOCK TRIAL, MOOT COURT &

JUDGEMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2024

3.2 Violation of Section 15 of the JJ Act, 2015, and Rule 10 of the Model Rules, 2016:-
Insufficient Psychological Evaluation

1. Your Lordships, the Counsel on behalf of the petitioner in their second fold of arguments
will establish, how the lack of outside assistance of an expert in the preliminary
assessment process violates the objective of Section 15 of the JJ Act, 2015, and Rule 10
of the Model Rules, 2016, and Insufficient Psychological Evaluation
2. The Juvenile Justice Board and Children’s Court have erred in equating the mental
capacity to commit the offence with the ability to understand the consequences of
that offence. While both factors are relevant to determining whether a juvenile should be
tried as an adult, they must be assessed separately. (facts, relate and explain your
argument)
3. It is pertinent to note that the while performing the assessment the language of Section 15
of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, emphasizes the
ability to understand the consequences of the offence. The use of the word
“consequences” in the plural is significant, as it broadens the scope of the assessment to
include not just immediate or direct outcomes but also long-term and far-reaching
effects.
4. In the present case, the Board and the Children’s Court relied heavily on the
Psychologist’s report which only reflected the IQ of the Dholu to be of average level
bearing a score 96.
5. In the case of Barun Chandra Thakur vs Master Bholu & anr. 5 , The Hon’ble Apex
court stated that: “68. The language used in section 15 is “the ability to understand the
consequences of the offence”. The expression used is in plurality i.e., “consequences” of
the offence and, therefore, would not just be confined to the immediate consequence of
the offence or that the occurrence of the offence would only have its consequence upon
the victim.”“71. Children may be geared towards more instant gratification and may be
able to deeply understand the long-term consequences of their actions. They are also
more likely to be influenced by emotion rather than reason.”
6. It is pertinent to note that, cognitive, emotional, and social development occurs at
different rates in adolescents. While a child may possess the intellectual ability to
commit an offence, it does not automatically follow that they can fully understand the

12
WRITTEN SUBMIISION ON BEHALF OF PETITONER & REVISIONIST
 THE 12TH ANNUAL ADV.B.P. APTE MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOCK TRIAL, MOOT COURT &

JUDGEMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2024

social, legal, and moral consequences of their actions. The ability to make complex
judgments, control impulses, and assess long-term consequences is often not fully
developed in minors, especially in cases where neurobiological development is still
ongoing.
7. In the case of Barun Chandra Thakur vs Master Bholu anr6. It was held that:“65.
While considering a child as an adult one needs to look at his/her physical maturity,
cognitive abilities, social and emotional competencies. It must be mentioned here that
from a neurobiological perspective, the development of cognitive, behavioural attributes
like the ability to delay gratification, decision making, risk-taking, impulsivity,
judgement, etc. continues until the early 20s. It is, therefore, all the more important that
such assessment is made to distinguish such attributes between a child and an adult.”
8. In the present case, the JJB’s failure to adequately distinguish between Dholu’s mental
capacity to commit the offence and his ability to understand the long-term
consequences of the offence is a serious error. By relying solely on a limited assessment
conducted by a Board member, the JJB has denied Dholu the benefit of a comprehensive
psychological evaluation, which should have included an independent expert’s opinion on
his emotional and cognitive maturity. Adolescents are more prone to risk-taking and
impulsivity due to an underdeveloped prefrontal cortex, which is responsible for
judgment and executive function. As a teen, the brain is not fully developed. For the
brain to ultimately reach maturity, it can take an adolescent well into their 20s, even their
late 20s, to set completely. Specifically, the prefrontal and frontal cortex are part of the
adolescent brain, but these parts are not fully formed. “In the adolescent brain, the
frontal and prefrontal cortexes aren't accessed with the same rapidity as the adult brain,
which is why adolescents can act more impulsively—the frontal and prefrontal cortex
house important executive functions like judgment and decision-making. Risky behaviors,
thrill-seeking, and impulsivity are not simply symptoms of teenagehood, but symptoms of
the developing adolescent brain.7”
9. In the present case, the assessment should have incorporated these scientific insights to
properly evaluate Dholu’s cognitive maturity and emotional regulation at the time of
the offence. Simply considering whether Dholu had the mental capacity to commit the

7
The Teenage Brain: A Neuroscientist's Guide to Raising Adolescents and Young Adults by Dr. Frances Jensen
2014

13
WRITTEN SUBMIISION ON BEHALF OF PETITONER & REVISIONIST
 THE 12TH ANNUAL ADV.B.P. APTE MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOCK TRIAL, MOOT COURT &

JUDGEMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2024

crime is not sufficient. His ability to grasp the long-term legal, social, and moral
consequences of his actions must also be considered.
10. The petitioner contends, that the Preliminary Assessment in the instant case lacked the
requisite impartiality and objectivity since it was conducted by a member of the JJB,
who is also involved in the adjudicative process. This dual role raises legitimate concerns
about bias and conflicts of interest. A psychological evaluation, which is a crucial factor
in determining whether a juvenile should be tried as an adult, must be conducted by an
independent and qualified expert.
11. The assessment conducted by Dr. Hari Shyam, a Board member, although experienced in
child psychiatry, cannot substitute for an external expert. The principles of natural
justice, including the rule against bias “Nemo Judex in Causa Sua”, It is a principle of
natural justice that no person can judge a case in which they have an interest . mandate
that a person involved in the decision-making process should not also be responsible for
conducting the assessment.
12. The psychological tests administered, including the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test
and Rorschach Inkblot Test, while useful in evaluating certain cognitive abilities, are
not sufficient tools to assess the child’s emotional maturity, understanding of
consequences, and mental capacity in the context of the alleged offense. These tests
are limited in scope and do not fully explore the child's developmental, emotional, or
psychological state in relation to the offense.
13. The Model Rules, 2016, particularly Rule 10(5), encourage the Board to seek
comprehensive assistance from professionals who specialize in child behaviour and
psychology. In Sampurna Behura vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that the,
“best interest of the child must be paramount and that the provisions of the JJ Act must
be interpreted in a way that ensures a fair and complete assessment of the child’s mental
and physical condition. Failure to conduct a thorough psychological evaluation by an
independent expert is a clear breach of this principle8”.
14. The petitioner submits that Dholu’s right to a fair trial has been compromised by the
flawed Preliminary Assessment process. The involvement of an independent psychologist
or expert is not just a procedural formality but a crucial element in ensuring that juveniles
are given the benefit of an objective and comprehensive evaluation. By conducting the

8
Sampurna Behura vs. Union of India (2018) 4 SCC 433

14
WRITTEN SUBMIISION ON BEHALF OF PETITONER & REVISIONIST
 THE 12TH ANNUAL ADV.B.P. APTE MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOCK TRIAL, MOOT COURT &

JUDGEMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2024

assessment without outside assistance, the JJB has acted contrary to the principles of
natural justice, which form the bedrock of juvenile justice jurisprudence.
15. In case of Barun Chandra Thakur vs Master Bholu anr 9. The apex court stated
that:“71. They are also more likely to be influenced by emotion rather than reason.
Research shows that young people do know risks to themselves. Despite this knowledge,
adolescents engage in riskier behaviour than adults.”
16. It is pertinent to note that although adolescents can cognitively comprehend risks, they are
more likely than adults to engage in risky behaviour due to social and emotional
influences, such as peer pressure or emotional impulsivity. This highlights the need for a
nuanced approach to understanding the child’s decision-making process at the time of
the offence.In the present case, this crucial factor should have been taken into account
when assessing Dholu, but the lack of an independent psychological evaluation
undermined the process. The failure to obtain expert assistance in understanding Dholu's
mental and emotional state at the time of the offence resulted in an improper assessment,
which violates the child's right to a fair and thorough evaluation under the JJ Act.
17. It is pertinent to note that, If Dr. Hari Shyam, a member of the Board, has a background in
child psychology, it is puzzling why the Board approached three other psychologists prior
to conducting the assessment. This raises questions about Dr. Shyam's competency and
the Board's commitment to ensuring a comprehensive evaluation. The Board could have
opted to wait for the availability of an expert rather than hastily proceeding with the
assessment. Such actions suggest a lack of diligence in fulfilling their responsibilities,
ultimately compromising the integrity of the evaluation process. Ensuring that qualified
professionals conduct these assessments is crucial for upholding the rights of children in
conflict with the law.

3.3 Conclusion

In light of the serious deficiencies in the Preliminary Assessment process conducted by the
Juvenile Justice Board, it is imperative that this Hon'ble Court recognizes the fundamental
rights of the child, Dholu, to a fair and just evaluation. The failure to engage independent
experts not only violates the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act and Model Rules but also
undermines the principles of natural justice that are essential to safeguarding the welfare of
minors in legal proceedings. A mere reliance on superficial judgments and an incomplete

15
WRITTEN SUBMIISION ON BEHALF OF PETITONER & REVISIONIST
 THE 12TH ANNUAL ADV.B.P. APTE MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOCK TRIAL, MOOT COURT &

JUDGEMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2024

assessment fails to respect the complexities of adolescent development and the dire
consequences of misjudging a child's capacity. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that the
Court must intervene to rectify these egregious oversights, ensuring that Dholu receives the
fair assessment mandated by law, thereby upholding the integrity of the juvenile justice
system and the rights of all children under its purview.

4- WHETHER THE SCOPE OF REVISION COURT U/S 102 OF JJ ACT IS WIDE

ENOUGH TO CALL INTO QUESTION THE TYPE OF TESTS USED BY THE
BOARD MEMBER FOR CONDUCTING THE PSYCHOLOGICAL
ASSESSMENT?

ARGUMENTS: - It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble High Court of Maya Pradesh by
the counsel on behalf of the Revisionist, that the scope of revision court u/s 102 of JJ Act is
wide enough to call into question the type of tests used by the Board member for conducting
the psychological assessment.

The argument for the present issue is divided into two folds i.e. first The High Court's
Authority to Review Under Section 102 of the JJ Act and second Serious Issues with the
Psychological Tests Used in the Assessment.

4.1 The High Court's Authority to Review Under Section 102 of the JJ Act

1. The revisionist, through this application, humbly invokes the wide revisional powers
vested to this Hon’ble High Court of Maya Pradesh under Section 102 of the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, to challenge the legality and
propriety of the psychological assessment conducted by the Juvenile Justice Board. The
preliminary assessment, which formed the basis for transferring the juvenile, Dholu, to be
tried as an adult, was conducted using methods that are both scientifically questionable
and inadequate for determining a minor's cognitive and emotional capacity to understand
the nature and consequences of his actions.
2. In the first fold of the argument, the revisionist will establish the scope, ambit or power of
the Hon'ble High Court to exercise with respect to the review of the order given by the
Children’s Court under section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
3. This Hon'ble Court, in exercising its revisional jurisdiction, has the authority to scrutinize
not only the outcome of the Board's decision but also the very process, including the
reliability, validity, and appropriateness of the tests employed. As such, the preliminary

16
WRITTEN SUBMIISION ON BEHALF OF PETITONER & REVISIONIST
 THE 12TH ANNUAL ADV.B.P. APTE MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOCK TRIAL, MOOT COURT &

JUDGEMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2024

assessment stands on precarious ground, rendering the Board’s decision legally

unsustainable and procedurally improper. Therefore, it is imperative that this Hon'ble
Court intervene to prevent a grave miscarriage of justice.

The verbatim of section 102 of the JJ Act is produced below 10: -Section 102 of the JJ
Act confers revisional powers upon the High Court, in the following manner: “102. The
High Court may, at any time, either on its own motion or on an application received in
this behalf, call for the record of any proceeding in which any Committee or Board or
Children’s Court, or Court has passed an order, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to
the legality or propriety of any such order and may pass such order in relation thereto
as it thinks fit: Provided that the High Court shall not pass an order under this section
prejudicial to any person without giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard.”
4. It is pertinent to note that in the instant case, the revisionist respectfully invokes the wide
and unrestricted revisional powers of this Hon’ble High Court under Section 102 of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, to challenge the legality and
propriety of the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board in the present case. The scope
of Section 102 is intentionally broad, allowing the Hon'ble High Court to call for the
record of any proceeding at any time, either on its own motion or on the application of a
party, to satisfy itself as to the "legality or propriety" of the order in question. The phrase
"legality or propriety" empowers the High Court to examine not merely the correctness of
the final decision but also the manner in which the decision was arrived at. This includes
a thorough scrutiny of whether the requisite legal procedures were followed, whether the
facts were properly assessed, and whether the decision was reasonable and just under the
circumstances. The broad revisional scope of Section 102 allows this Hon’ble Court to
ensure that decisions affecting juveniles are rendered in strict conformity with both the
letter and spirit of the law.
5. In the present case, the psychological assessment conducted by the Juvenile Justice Board
forms the cornerstone of the decision to try the juvenile, Dholu, as an adult. This
assessment is not a mere formality but a critical legal and procedural step with profound
consequences for the juvenile's rights and future. Therefore, the assessment must be
conducted with the highest degree of care, objectivity, and fairness, but unfortunately, the
10

17
WRITTEN SUBMIISION ON BEHALF OF PETITONER & REVISIONIST
 THE 12TH ANNUAL ADV.B.P. APTE MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOCK TRIAL, MOOT COURT &

JUDGEMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2024

assessment was not conducted by an independent expert for the psychological test, it was
conducted by one of the member of the JJ Board hence, it does raise the doubt and hence,
this revision petition is filed.
6. In the case of Barun Chandra Thakur vs Master Bholu & anr. 11Before coming to the
Apex the revisionist has approached the Hon’ble High Court under section 102 wherein
the High Court has allowed the Revision and set aside the orders passed by the Boards
and Children Court and also remanded the matter to the Board for a fresh consideration.
7. In the present case, the due to the similar issue the Hon’ble High Court of Maya Pradesh
can set aside the said impugned order and direct the Board for fresh consideration. The
Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, while allowing such preliminary assessments under Section
15, does not explicitly state that the Board members themselves must carry out these
assessments in isolation, nor does it preclude the involvement of external experts. The
omission of such expertise, in a matter so complex as psychological evaluation, raises
serious concerns about the propriety of the process. Section 102, by its very design,
provides this Hon'ble Court with the power to scrutinize whether the procedural
safeguards were adhered to, whether external expertise was necessary, and whether the
Board member was competent to conduct such an assessment alone. This revisional
power extends to ensuring that no miscarriage of justice has occurred due to procedural
irregularities or misapplication of the law.
8. Furthermore, it is contended that Section 102 of the JJ Act, includes a proviso ensuring
that no adverse order can be passed without providing the affected party with a reasonable
opportunity to be heard. In this instance, Dholu was denied the procedural safeguard of a
properly conducted psychological assessment, one that should have involved an external
expert to ensure its accuracy and fairness. The failure to meet this standard infringes upon
his statutory rights and undermines the legality and propriety of the entire assessment
process. This Hon’ble Court, in exercising its broad and comprehensive powers under
Section 102, is therefore not only empowered but obligated to address these issues and
ensure that justice is delivered in accordance with both the legal framework and the
principles of fairness that underlie the Juvenile Justice Act.
9. The Hon’ble High Court of Maya Pradesh is thus well within its powers to question the
methods used during the preliminary assessment, including the specific psychological
tests administered by the Board. The power of revision allows the High Court to not only
11

18
WRITTEN SUBMIISION ON BEHALF OF PETITONER & REVISIONIST
 THE 12TH ANNUAL ADV.B.P. APTE MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOCK TRIAL, MOOT COURT &

JUDGEMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2024

review the outcome of the preliminary assessment but also scrutinize whether the
psychological tests used were appropriate, valid, and in line with established principles of
fairness and justice.

1.2 Serious Issues with the Psychological Tests Used in the Assessment.

1. Your lordships, the counsel will now deal with the second fold of the argument i.e.
Serious Issues with the Psychological Tests Used in the Assessment.Tests Used by the
Board: In this case, the Juvenile Justice Board employed two psychological tests: the
Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test and the Rorschach Inkblot Test to assess Dholu's
cognitive and psychological capacity for understanding the nature and consequences of
his actions.
2. Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test: Widely known as an intelligence test, the Stanford-
Binet is primarily used to measure cognitive abilities and intellectual development.
However, the test has faced substantial criticism over its cultural bias, particularly when
administered to individuals from diverse backgrounds. The test's reliance on culturally
specific knowledge can lead to skewed results, especially when applied to individuals
who may not share the same cultural context as the test’s normative sample. Furthermore,
the fixed intelligence assumption embedded in the Stanford-Binet model undermines the
idea that intelligence is dynamic and can be influenced by environmental factors, such as
upbringing, education, and social conditions12.
3. The Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test, while widely used, has long been criticized for
cultural bias and its narrow focus on fixed intelligence. The inherent assumption that
intelligence is static fails to account for the dynamic nature of cognitive development,
especially in juveniles, whose cognitive abilities are constantly evolving. This test is
inadequate in assessing the nuanced psychological and emotional capacities required
under Section 15, particularly the juvenile's understanding of the nature and consequences
of their actions. The revisionist contends that the Board’s use of this test is insufficient to
assess the maturity and intent required to make such a consequential determination.
4. In the present case, the psychological assessment was conducted using the
aforementioned intelligence tests, which have been widely criticized for their inherent
flaws and limitations. Given these significant shortcomings, relying on such tests to
12
Becker, K. A. (2003). History of the Stanford-Binet intelligence scales. Fifth edition assessment service.

19
WRITTEN SUBMIISION ON BEHALF OF PETITONER & REVISIONIST
 THE 12TH ANNUAL ADV.B.P. APTE MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOCK TRIAL, MOOT COURT &

JUDGEMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2024

determine the future of a child—whether they should be tried as a juvenile or an adult is

highly inappropriate and unjust. The child's fate cannot be decided on the basis of a test
that lacks accuracy and fairness. Therefore, the assessment conducted in this manner
should not be considered valid for such a crucial decision.
5. Rorschach Inkblot Test: The Rorschach Inkblot Test, often considered a projective test,
has been criticized for its lack of reliability and validity. Critics argue that the test does
not meet the necessary psychometric standards, and its results can often reflect the
examiner's interpretations more than the examinee’s true psychological state.
Additionally, its utility for making formal psychiatric diagnoses has been questioned, with
research indicating its limited effectiveness in diagnosing disorders other than
schizophrenia or borderline personality disorder. The subjective nature of the test can also
lead to over-perception of psychopathology, making it an unreliable tool for
determining cognitive capacity or culpability in legal contexts.
6. The use of the Rorschach Inkblot Test, a projective test with questionable psychometric
validity, further undermines the integrity of the assessment. Critics argue that the
Rorschach Test lacks reliability, with interpretations often reflecting the biases of the
examiner rather than providing an objective evaluation of the examinee’s mental state.
The test has also been shown to over-diagnose psychopathology, leading to flawed
conclusions. The Board’s decision to employ such a subjective and controversial test to
determine whether a juvenile should be tried as an adult raises legitimate concerns about
the fairness and accuracy of the assessment13.
7. Criticism of the Tests and Grounds for Dismissal: Both the Stanford-Binet and
Rorschach tests have been heavily criticized in psychological and academic circles,
raising doubts about their appropriateness in a legal context, especially when the stakes
are as high as determining whether a minor should be tried as an adult. The reliance on
the Stanford-Binet Test's potentially culturally biased framework and the unreliable and
subjective nature of the Rorschach Test make them inadequate tools for such a crucial
assessment. “Quality and cross-cultural research Much of the clinical and research base
on Rorschach Inkblot Test has become outdated [82]. Research is especially scarce for
Rorschach Test techniques [82]. Several recent studies [83,84] indicate that Rorschach
scores for relatively normal community samples of Mexicans, Central American, South

13
Mondal A. & Kumar M. (2020). Rorschach inkblot test: an overview on current status. International Journal of
Indian Psychology, 8(4), 595-611.

20
WRITTEN SUBMIISION ON BEHALF OF PETITONER & REVISIONIST
 THE 12TH ANNUAL ADV.B.P. APTE MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOCK TRIAL, MOOT COURT &

JUDGEMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2024

Africa and Asia often differ significantly from the norm of Comprehensive System (CS)
for the Rorschach [67,55]. In the light of these findings there is substantial reason to
doubt the validity of Rorschach scores across diverse cultures and linguistic groups.14”
8. The Stanford-Binet Test, given its cultural bias and static view of intelligence, may have
produced a distorted understanding of Dholu’s cognitive abilities, especially if Dholu
comes from a background that is not well represented in the test’s normative samples.The
Rorschach Test, due to its highly subjective interpretation, may have falsely portrayed
Dholu’s psychological state, leading to an inaccurate conclusion about his mental and
emotional capacity.
9. The Hon’ble Court while exercising its revisional jurisdiction should find that the
Juvenile Justice Board's reliance on these flawed tests renders the preliminary assessment
unreliable and improper15. Given the limitations of both the Stanford-Binet and
Rorschach tests, it is clear that the assessment does not meet the requisite standards of
fairness and justice required under the JJ Act.
10. It is pertinent to note that the substantial flaws, inaccuracies, and legal shortcomings in
the psychological assessment conducted by the Juvenile Justice Board, it is evident that
the process was fundamentally flawed, unjust and incorrect. The reliance on scientifically
discredited tests and the lack of expert involvement render the assessment not only
inadequate but also procedurally wrong. Given these serious deficiencies, the High Court,
exercising its revisional powers under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice Act, must
conclude that the assessment was deeply flawed and legally unsound. It is therefore
respectfully submitted that the Court should dismiss the preliminary assessment in its
entirety and direct the Board to undertake a new evaluation, conducted with rigorous
scientific standards and proper expert participation, to ensure that the decision regarding
the juvenile's trial is both lawful and fair.

14
Mondal A. & Kumar M. (2020). Rorschach inkblot test: an overview on current status. International Journal of
Indian Psychology, 8(4), 595-611
15
Child In Conflict With Law Through Guardian vs State Of Gujarat Revision Petition.

21
WRITTEN SUBMIISION ON BEHALF OF PETITONER & REVISIONIST
 THE 12TH ANNUAL ADV.B.P. APTE MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOCK TRIAL, MOOT COURT &

JUDGEMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2024

4.3 Conclusion

In conclusion, it is respectfully submitted that the wide revisional powers of this Hon'ble
Court under Section 102 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015,
allow for a thorough review of the legality and propriety of the psychological tests used by
the Juvenile Justice Board in the assessment of the juvenile. The reliance on scientifically
questionable tools like the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test and the Rorschach Inkblot Test,
which have been criticized for their cultural bias, lack of reliability, and validity, renders the
Board's decision procedurally flawed and unjust. The assessment, which forms the basis for
transferring the juvenile to be tried as an adult, was conducted without the involvement of
independent experts, violating the statutory and procedural safeguards intended to protect the
juvenile’s rights. Therefore, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court, exercising its
revisional jurisdiction, set aside the impugned order and direct a fresh assessment to be
conducted with expert participation and scientifically reliable methods, ensuring that the
juvenile’s rights are protected and justice is delivered.

22
WRITTEN SUBMIISION ON BEHALF OF PETITONER & REVISIONIST
 THE 12TH ANNUAL ADV.B.P. APTE MEMORIAL NATIONAL MOCK TRIAL, MOOT COURT &

JUDGEMENT WRITING COMPETITION, 2024

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, in the light of facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced & authorities cited,
the counsel on behalf of the Petitioner & Revisionist, hereby most humbly & respectfully, in
the interest of equity and justice, it is prayed and implored before –

THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF MAYAPRADESH

TO

1. Declare Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2015, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 15, and 21 of the Constitution of
Bindia, as it: Arbitrarily discriminates between juveniles based on age and the nature of
offenses, thereby violating the right to equality and the principle of non-arbitrariness,
2. Direct the Juvenile Justice Board and Children’s Courts to ensure that any future
Preliminary Assessment under the Juvenile Justice Act shall be conducted with
mandatory involvement of external psychological experts, in compliance with Rule 10 of
the Model Rules, 2016.
3. Set aside or quash the order passed by the Children’s Court, directing the trial of the
juvenile (Smith) as an adult, on the grounds that: The psychological assessment
conducted by the Juvenile Justice Board was in violation of Section 15 of the JJ Act and
Rule 10 of the Model Rules, 2016, as no external assistance was sought in conducting the
psychological evaluation
4. Direct the Juvenile Justice Board to conduct a fresh Preliminary Assessment, with
the involvement of qualified external psychological experts, in accordance with the
provisions of the JJ Act and Model Rules, ensuring a proper evaluation of the child’s
mental and psychological capacity.
5. Declare that the psychological evaluation conducted in the present case is void, as it
failed to meet the statutory and constitutional requirements, and that the order of transfer
to the Children’s Court is invalid.
6. Pass any other orders, as this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the interest of
justice and fair treatment of juveniles.

Place:- Mayapradesh All of which is respectfully submitted

Counsel for Petitioner & Revisionist.

23
WRITTEN SUBMIISION ON BEHALF OF PETITONER & REVISIONIST