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

Liberal Interpretation of Limitation under the Arbitration Act

Arbitration has become a well-sought-after dispute resolution mechanism due to its expedience, and finality. However, arbitration has not always been synonymous with speedy resolution. Strict timelines for concluding arbitral proceedings were introduced through the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015... Read more »

Vidyasagar Prasad Vs. UCO Bank & Anr. 2024 INSC 810

In the case of Vidyasagar Prasad vs. UCO Bank & Anr. 2024 INSC 810, the Supreme Court upheld the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against a Corporate Debtor that defaulted on loan repayments to UCO Bank. The NCLT had approved the CIRP application, prompting the Corporate Debtor to appeal to the NCLAT.... Read more » Read more »

Tarina Sen Vs. Union of India & Anr. 2024 INSC 752

In this Criminal Appeal, the Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings, quashing charges u/s 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code 1860 & S.13(2) r/with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and held that continuing the criminal trial would cause great oppression & prejudice, when the appellants had played no active role... Read more » 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.