‘Disastrous Effects of Social Media on Adolescents’: Allahabad HC Sets Aside Adult Trial of Teenager

“Television, internet, and social media are having disastrous effects on adolescents' impressionable minds, causing a loss of innocence at a tender age,” the Allahabad High Court observed, as it set aside orders directing a 16-year-old boy to be tried as an adult in a case involving the rape and abortion of a 14-year-old girl.

Moreover, cautioning against the growing “retributive approach” in juvenile justice, court noted how adolescents are “crash-landing into adulthood” under the weight of technology, without the emotional or mental maturity to match.

The bench of Justice Siddharth made the remarks while hearing a criminal revision petition filed by the juvenile, who had challenged the orders of the Juvenile Justice Board and the POCSO Court, Kaushambi, both of which had directed that he be tried as an adult. The boy had been accused of maintaining a physical relationship with the minor girl for about a year. When she became pregnant, it was alleged that the juvenile, along with two adult men, administered medicine that led to a miscarriage.

However, a psychological report presented before the Board assessed the boy’s IQ at 66 and pegged his mental age at just six years. It also highlighted poor academic performance and limited social interaction, with findings suggestive of mild intellectual disability.

Despite this, the Board and the POCSO Court concluded that he understood the consequences of his actions and should face adult trial.

The High Court disagreed, finding their reasoning flawed and the process procedurally deficient. Referring to the expert findings, the bench said: “From the BKT IQ categories… the revisionist with score of 62 comes in borderline category which is even below the category of low / below average".

It further added, “There is nothing on record to indicate that the revisionist is a predator on the prowl and is prone to repeating the offence without any provocation. He never indulged in any such or other offence earlier. Maturity of his mind has not been certified by the psychologist".

Court noted that the juvenile had “poor and limited environmental exposure” and “some difficulty in social domains as assessed by the CBCL was found borderline to mild clinical range".

Citing with approval the Bombay High Court’s ruling in Mumtaz Ahmed Nasir Khan, court warned against a mechanical approach. It quoted the Bombay High Court ruling that, “just because the statute permits a child of 16 years and beyond can stand trial in a heinous offence as an adult, it does not mean that the statute intends that all those children should be subject to adult punishment. It is not a default choice; a conscious, calibrated one". Court reiterated that “retributive approach vis-a-vis juveniles needs to be shunned unless there are exceptional circumstances, involving gross moral turpitude and irredeemable proclivity for the crime".

Calling the decisions of the lower courts “contrary to the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder,” the high court allowed the criminal revision and directed that the boy be tried afresh under the Juvenile Justice Act.

“Merely because he committed a heinous crime he cannot be put to par with an adult when his social exposure was also found to be deficient by the psychologist,” the court said, while directing the Registrar (Compliance) to communicate the order to the Juvenile Justice Board, Kaushambi, within three days.

Case Title: Juvenile X vs State of UP and 3 Others

Judgment Date: July 24, 2025

Bench: Justice Siddharth