The Bhutanese Leading the way.
Family and Child Bench says individual circumstances, rehabilitation and the best interests of the children guided the judgments
The Family and Child Bench of the Thimphu District Court on 11th August 2026 has ordered six-month diversion in lieu of formal adjudication for 10 children in conflict with the law (CICL) involved in cases arising from incidents of battery, accomplice liability and failure to report a crime at a school in Thimphu. The incident had gone viral on social media.
The court rendered 10 judgments, following a structured assessment of the circumstances of each child, including the nature of the incidents leading to physical altercation, the history of conflict between those involved and the children’s behavioural and social circumstances.
The cases were registered on 3rd July 2026 after the Royal Bhutan Police (RBP) filed charge sheets against the 10 minors in connection with incidents involving students of a school in Thimphu.
The incidents then gained wider attention after videos of the altercations were circulated on social media.
The court, however, has maintained that details identifying the children and the specific terms of their diversion agreements remain confidential under the Child Care and Protection Act of Bhutan (CCPA).
In ordering diversion, the court considered the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration under Section 3, Chapter 2 of the CCPA, 2011, and exercised its authority under Chapter 12 of the Act to use diversion as an alternative to formal adjudication.
The court stated that such cases can arise from unresolved peer conflicts, inadequate intervention by adults, family stressors and social media dynamics, and that formal punishment may not address the underlying causes of such behaviour.
Before ordering diversion, the court carried out an individual assessment of each case.
This included consultations with the CICL, victims, probation officers from the PEMA Secretariat and other relevant stakeholders.
The court also considered factors including the children’s acknowledgement of the offence, remorse and absence of previous criminal records.
Input from child psychologists and school authorities was also considered in assessing the children’s suitability for diversion.
The court said the approach was guided by restorative justice and rehabilitation, with emphasis on the needs of the children and their families rather than retributive outcomes, character development, parental responsibility in the child’s rehabilitation and reintegration.
Individual diversion agreements were subsequently prepared with the involvement of the children, their parents, legal aid representatives and probation officers.
The six-month diversion programmes include measures designed to address the circumstances of each child.
While the specific terms of the agreements could not be disclosed because of confidentiality provisions, the court said the framework includes programs such as conflict-resolution sessions, journaling, responsible use of artificial intelligence, and trust and communication-building sessions.
Compliance with the diversion agreements will be jointly monitored by the respective probation officers and parents.
The court stated that failure to comply with the diversion agreements will result in the matters being brought back before the court for formal adjudication and sentencing, in accordance with Section 195, Chapter 12 of the CCPA.
The judgments also direct that measures be taken to prevent the stigmatization of the children, whether as offenders or victims, in accordance with Section 15(f) of the CCPA.
The RBP has also been directed to prevent further circulation of videos related to the incidents on social media to protect the children’s right to privacy under Section 21 of the CCPA.
The court said its approach reflected its role under the principle of Parens Patriae and its commitment to addressing not only the incidents themselves, but also underlying factors such as the root cause, communication breakdowns, peer conflict and the risks posed by digital media in amplifying harm among young people.
Furthermore, the court stated that formal prosecution, in cases such as this, often fails to address the underlying dynamics that led to the offence and can cause lasting harm to a child’s development and reintegration prospects.
It said that the court’s preference for diversion reflects both the evidence on children rehabilitation outcomes and its statutory duty to act in the best interests of the child.
Background
The police had earlier identified 10 minors in connection with a series of incidents that occurred on 8th to 10th June 2026 at a school in Thimphu.
The incidents involved physical altercations among students and were linked to conflicts and allegations of backbiting among the students.
According to the police investigation, some of the minors were directly involved in the physical altercations, while others were identified in connection with being present during the incidents, including individuals who allegedly recorded the videos.
The RBP had filed charges under provisions of the Penal Code of Bhutan relating to battery, accomplice liability and failure to report a crime.
Police had also stated that medical reports showed that the injuries sustained were non-grievous.
The videos from the incidents were later circulated on social media and gained wider public attention from 15th June 2026.
However, police had said the incidents were reported to authorities before the videos became widely circulated.
