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

Supreme Court Upholds Post-Delivery Penalty for Mis declared Goods by Railways

In Union of India v. M/s Kamakhya Transport Pvt. Ltd. (2025 INSC 805), the Supreme Court held that Indian Railways can recover penalties for misdeclared consignments even after delivery under Section 66 of the Railways Act, 1989. Overturning the Gauhati High Court, it clarified that the law sets no time Read more »

UNITECH Limited & ors. v. Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (TSIIC) & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 317 of 2021, decided on 07-02-2021

The presence of an arbitration clause does oust the jurisdiction under Article 226 in all cases though, it still needs to be decided from case to case as to whether recourse to a public law remedy can justifiably be invoked. Read more »

Kunal Majumdar Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 9 SCC 320

The court observed that, section 366 of the CrPC casts a duty upon the High Court to, (a) “examine the nature and manner in which the offence was committed, mens reas, if any of the culprit, the plight of the victim as noted by the trail court, the diabolic manner 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.