Supreme Court Affirms Protection of Juvenile Records Under Section 24 of JJ Act, 2015
The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Lokesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr., has reiterated the protective intent of Section 24 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. This provision ensures that a child convicted of an offence under the Act does not suffer any disqualification due to such conviction. The Court emphasized that any continued appearance of such conviction details in public or official documents undermines the legislative safeguard.
The Bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, observed that Section 24 expressly states, “a child ... shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attached to a conviction.” This provision creates a distinct sphere of immunity for individuals adjudicated under the juvenile justice framework. The Court underscored that the broader humanitarian objective of the JJ Act, 2015, is to rehabilitate and reintegrate juveniles into society without the burden of past conflicts with the law.
Additionally, the Bench highlighted Sub-section (2) of Section 24, which mandates the destruction of relevant conviction records after a certain period. This, the Court noted, reinforces the legislature’s intent to provide a fresh start for juveniles, ensuring that past infractions do not impede their future opportunities.
Case Background
In the present case, the appellant was convicted by the Juvenile Justice Board in 2021 for misbehaving, abusing, and physically assaulting an individual. The Board sentenced him to sit before it until the rising of the Board on that day and imposed a fine of Rs. 600.
Subsequently, in 2024, the appellant applied for a position at SIS Case Services Ltd. As part of the recruitment process, he was required to submit a character certificate issued by the concerned police station. The Superintendent of Police, while issuing the certificate, disclosed the appellant’s past juvenile conviction. Challenging this disclosure, the appellant approached the High Court, contending that such revelation adversely impacted his employment prospects and contravened Section 24 of the JJ Act, 2015.
However, the High Court dismissed his petition, stating that the appellant should challenge his conviction before the competent court under the Act. This led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Observations
At the outset, the Supreme Court examined the relevant statutory provisions, particularly Section 3(xiv) of the JJ Act, which states, “All past records of any child under the Juvenile Justice system shall be erased, except in special circumstances.” The Court noted that the appellant’s misbehavior did not constitute a heinous offence, nor did he pose any threat to public safety or security. Therefore, reflecting his juvenile record in an official certificate conflicted with the rehabilitative policy underpinning the Act.
The Court further pointed out that while the High Court ruled that the appellant should challenge the conviction, the crux of the complaint was the improper disclosure of his juvenile records, rather than the conviction itself.
“While it may be true that the Appellant can pursue an appeal or revision on the merits of the conviction, that reasoning overlooks his core complaint regarding the enduring disqualifying effect of such conviction, a consequence that the JJ Act, 2015 expressly seeks to nullify. Irrespective of whether the conviction is left intact, Section 24 of the JJ Act, 2015 protects juveniles from suffering ongoing disqualification in adulthood,” the Court observed.
Judgment and Directions
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in relegating the appellant to an alternative remedy, as it failed to address the primary issue. Consequently, judicial intervention was warranted to ensure that the juvenile record does not hinder the appellant’s future opportunities.
“We are of the considered view that the Impugned Order fails to recognize the proper scope and operation of Section 24 of the JJ Act, 2015. By dismissing the Appellant's challenge on grounds of an alternative remedy, the High Court inadvertently frustrates the Legislature’s mandate that protects a rehabilitated juvenile’s adult life prospects from past conflicts with the law,” the Court held.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the portion of the character certificate mentioning the appellant’s juvenile conviction was quashed. Additionally, all relevant authorities were directed to refrain from disclosing any juvenile conviction details in future verification processes concerning the appellant. The Court also ruled that the appellant’s juvenile conviction should not lead to any form of disqualification in his future endeavors.
The judgment mandates strict compliance from all authorities, including the police and other public bodies, responsible for issuing character certificates and conducting background checks. Before concluding, the Court reiterated the fundamental principle of the Juvenile Justice Act—ensuring a rehabilitated juvenile is given a fair opportunity to reintegrate into society without the stigma of past offences.