Moral Responsibility Alone Insufficient for Criminal Liability, Charge or Control Over Child Essential to Punish under S. 75 of the JJ Act

  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Publications
  4. /
  5. Case Snippets
  6. /
  7. Moral Responsibility Alone...

In S.C. Narang Vs. State (NCT Of Delhi), 2025 INSC 688, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 cannot be used to punish Chairman of the school’s Managing Committee as he neither has actual charge of the child nor control over him/her. The appeal arose from an incident at a school wherein a four-year-old nursery student was allegedly sexually assaulted by a classmate of less than 7 years in November 2017. A police investigation was conducted, and a charge sheet was filed under Section 21 of the POCSO Act and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. The Appellant, Chairman of the school’s Managing Committee, was later summoned based on a protest petition, holding him responsible for not implementing the CCTV guidelines issued by the Directorate of Education. The Special Court attributed negligence to the appellant, citing failure to install CCTV cameras in classrooms and corridors. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Section 75 of the JJ Act applies only if the accused had “actual charge” or “control” over the child. Since the Chairman did not have direct control over the victim child and only oversaw the management of the institution, the Court found the charge under Section 75 inapplicable. Moral responsibility alone, the Court clarified, is insufficient for criminal liability under the JJ Act. As a result, the Supreme Court set aside the orders of the Special Court and the High Court, and allowed the appeal.

Tags:

Let us help you!

If you need any help, please feel free to contact us. We will get back to you within one business day. Alternatively, if you're in a hurry, you can call us now

+91 9052538538
info@karavadi.in

Recent Case Snippets

The Personality Behind The Work Tracing The Contours Of Personality Rights Under Indian Copyright Law

Anup Koushki Karavadi and Kanishk Tiwari Introduction In the collective imagination of Indian popular culture, certain expressions have become inseparable from the personalities who coined them. The irreverent “Bhidu” of Jackie Shroff, the resonant baritone of Amitabh Bachchan, or the poised elegance of Aishwarya Rai. These traits transcend the screen Read more »

Chetanram Chaudhary & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra; (2000) 8 SCC 457

Evidence Law - Appreciation of Testimony - Minor contradictions in the testimony, while appreciating the evidence in criminal trial -contradictions in material particulars and not minor contradictions can be a ground to discredit the testimony of the witnesses. Read more »

Sangeet Vs. State Of Haryana, (2013) 2 SCC 452.

The court observed that, it is a common misperception that a person facing a life sentence has an unassailable right to be released after serving 14 or 20 years in jail. No such right exists for the prisoner. Subject to any remission granted by the appropriate government under Section 432 Read more »

Disclaimer

The Rules and Regulations set forth by the Bar Council of India under Advocates Act, 1961 prohibit Advocates or Law Firms from advertising or soliciting work through public domain communications. This website is intended solely to provide information. Karavadi & Associates (“K&A”) does not aim to advertise or solicit clients through this platform. K & A disclaim any responsibility for decisions made by readers/visitors based solely on the content of this website.

By clicking 'AGREE,' readers/visitors agree and acknowledge that the information provided herein (a) does not constitute advertising or solicitation, and (b) is intended solely for their understanding of K & A services. By continuing to use this site, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as outlined in our Cookie Policy.