Rajasthan High Court: In a petition concerning determination of juvenility under Section 94, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act), a Single Judge Bench of Anoop Kumar Dhand, J., upheld the rejection of the petitioner’s claim that he was a juvenile on the date of the alleged offence, holding that greater evidentiary value could be accorded to the earliest school admission record where there is a conflict regarding the date of birth. While deciding the petition, the Court also expressed concern over the systemic deficiencies in preliminary assessment procedures under Sections 15 and 18(3), JJ Act and the rehabilitation of care leavers, and issued extensive directions and guidelines to strengthen the juvenile justice framework in the State.
Background
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the trial court whereby his application seeking to declare him as a juvenile was rejected. The petitioner contended that his date of birth is 1 July 2006, as recorded in the Class X marksheet issued by the Rajasthan Board of Secondary Education, whereas the date of the alleged incident was 28 April 2023. It was argued that on the relevant date, he was below 18 years of age and was therefore entitled to be treated as a juvenile and tried before the Juvenile Justice Board instead of the Special POCSO Court. The petitioner further submitted that the trial court had erroneously rejected his application on the basis of the school admission form, wherein his date of birth was recorded as 14 November 2003, which, according to him, is incorrect.
The respondent, on the other hand, opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioner was admitted to Class I in the Government Senior Secondary School on 3 July 2007 by his father, wherein his date of birth was recorded as 14 November 2003. The respondent contended that even if the petitioner’s claim that his date of birth is 1 July 2006 is accepted, it is wholly inconceivable that a child aged about 1 year could have been admitted to Class I. Consequently, on the date of the alleged incident, the petitioner had already attained the age of 18 years and was not entitled to be treated as a juvenile. Hence, the trial court had rightly rejected the application, and the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
Analysis and Decision
The Court observed that an FIR had been registered against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 376-D, 376, 386, 363 and 354, Penal Code, 1860; Sections 3/4, 5/6 and 7/6, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; and Section 67, Information Technology Act, 2000. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner by treating him as an adult accused.
The Court thereafter examined Section 94, JJ Act, which deals with the determination of age of a person. The Court observed that under the said provision, both the school certificate and the matriculation certificate are relevant documents and are to be considered at the first instance, and the Court retains the authority to evaluate such documents along with other attending circumstances of the case in order to ascertain the actual date of birth.
The Court further observed that the petitioner had relied upon certain judgments of the Supreme Court as a precedent to emphasise the primacy of the matriculation certificate in determining the age of an accused. However, the Court held that those judgments were distinguishable on facts, as they pertained to offences committed prior to the enforcement of the JJ Act. Therefore, the Court observed that under the JJ Act, the matriculation certificate no longer enjoys exclusive primacy in the determination of age.
While examining the case on merits, the Court found that the petitioner had been admitted to the Government Higher Secondary School in July 2007 and that his date of birth had been recorded as 14 November 2003 by his father at the time of admission. In these circumstances, the Court found it difficult to accept the petitioner’s claim that his date of birth was 1 July 2006, as it would imply that he was approximately 1 year old when admitted to Class I. The Court further held that the matriculation certificate can be accorded preference only when the date of birth certificate from the school first attended could not be obtained.
The Court opined that, in cases involving a conflict regarding a date of birth of any person, more value should be accorded to the entry in the Government Primary School or Class I Register at the first instance because it is closest to the birth, is authentic and there are less chances of its manipulation. The Court also found no substance in the petitioner’s allegation regarding any discrepancy or manipulation in the school admission record.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the Court concluded that the petitioner had attained the age of 18 years on the date of the alleged incident and was therefore not a juvenile. Accordingly, the Court upheld the impugned order passed by the trial court and held that no interference was warranted.
Observations and Directions Issued by the Court
I. Issues Identified by the Court
The Court took serious note of 2 major systemic issues affecting children in conflict with law (CCLs) and observed that they required immediate attention and effective intervention by the authorities concerned.
(A) Proper Preliminary Assessment under Sections 15 and 18(3) of the JJ Act
The Court examined Sections 15 and 18(3), JJ Act, and expressed concern that the preliminary assessments of children alleged to have committed heinous offences were not being conducted in their true spirit. The Court found that psychiatrists/psychologists and the child psychology experts empanelled by the Juvenile Justice Boards were submitting reports in a mechanical manner without adhering to the detailed guidelines and format prescribed by the National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (NIMHANS), Bengaluru titled “Guidelines for Conducting Preliminary Assessment” under Section 15, JJ Act.
The Court observed that in several cases, the juveniles were not sent for preliminary assessment for several months. They were kept in hospital for more than 10 days by the doctors/physicians and a formal report was issued even without conducting the actual preliminary assessment which adversely affected their right of trial under the JJ Act.
The Court further emphasised that the purpose of preliminary assessment is not to decide whether the child has committed the offence or not, but to assess mental maturity of the child. Therefore, it must be conducted in a child-friendly and meaningful manner and should not be treated as a mere formality.
(B) After Care of the Care Leavers i.e. children leaving Care Homes after attaining the age of 18 years
The Court observed that every child is entitled to a healthy and happy childhood, free from exploitation, violence, abuse and degrading treatment, so as to realise their full potential. The Court noted that despite the existence of various child welfare laws, policies, constitutional safeguards and welfare schemes, inadequate implementation has continued to create significant challenges for children residing in as well as leaving child care institutions.
The Court observed that once children attain the age of 18 years and leave a child care institution, they are left without shelter, education, livelihood opportunities, skill development or any effective mechanism for social reintegration, which exposes them to recidivism and vagrancy.
The Court also observed that many of them struggle to establish their identity and lack essential documents such as aadhaar cards, voter identity cards, domicile certificates and PAN cards, which are necessary for accessing education, employment, healthcare, housing and other welfare benefits. Due to absence of family support and financial security, they are often exposed to homelessness, unemployment, exploitation, trafficking and social marginalisation. They also suffer from emotional isolation and face difficulties in pursuing education and securing stable employment. However, the Court noted that a cited survey found that 93% of care leavers who receive vocational training and livelihood support are significantly more likely to secure and retain employment, demonstrating that their vulnerability stems from a lack of support rather than a lack of potential.
The Court further observed that due to inadequate awareness of available rights, schemes and support mechanisms, many juveniles are unable to access the benefits intended for them and are consequently excluded from existing welfare measures. Emphasising the need for a successful transition into adulthood, the Court stressed the importance of providing continued support in the form of education, housing, skill development, employment opportunities, and emotional well-being.
The Court, therefore, directed the Central as well as State Governments to make every possible effort to address the specific needs of such children.
II. Directions issued by the Court
For resolving the above 2 serious issues, the Court issued the following interim directions for strengthening the Juvenile Justice framework:
(A) For Preliminary Assessment
1. The State Government shall within 6 weeks constitute a panel of clinical psychologists, psychiatrists and experts in child psychology in each district, who are trained as per NIMHANS guidelines and a mandatory sensitisation training programme shall be organised for them within 60 days by the authority concerned.
2. The preliminary assessment must include interaction with child for at least 3 sittings, interview of parents/guardians, school teacher and use of standardised psychological tools to assess mental age and maturity and only those report shall be accepted by any Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) which are strictly in the format prescribed by the NIMHANS, Bengaluru.
(B) For Aftercare of Children attaining 18 years
1. The State Government is directed to file an affidavit indicating the existing aftercare homes under Section 46, JJ Act and Rule 25, Model Rules, 2016 and the number of children rehabilitated in last 3 years.
2. The Department of Social Justice and Empowerment shall prepare a comprehensive Aftercare and Rehabilitation Policy providing stay, continuation of studies, vocational training, counselling and financial assistance for 1 year to every child leaving child care institution after attaining 18 years of age, who has no family to support.
3. The State shall consider tying up with the Rajasthan Skill and Livelihoods Development Corporation (RSLDC) and open Industrial Training Institutes (ITIs) for such children.
(C) Constitution of the State Juvenile Justice Council
The Court directed the Government of Rajasthan to constitute a State Juvenile Justice Council within 30 days, for the entire State comprising senior government officials, the Member Secretary of RSLSA, mental health experts, representatives of child-rights organisations, the UNICEF Director, Jaipur and other concerned authorities with the responsibility to standardise the format and procedure of preliminary assessment under Section 15 in consonance with NIMHANS Bengaluru Guidelines, 2024, prescribing qualification and training standards for experts, framing an Aftercare Policy for care leavers, conducting quarterly reviews of child care institutions and aftercare homes, and submitting bi-annual reports to the Court.
(D) Constitution of Divisional Level Juvenile Justice Commissions
The Court directed the establishment of Divisional Level Juvenile Justice Commissions in every Revenue Division of the State. These Commissions were tasked with addressing individual grievances of juveniles and care leavers, ensuring access to shelter, education and skill development, conducting inspections of child care institutions and aftercare homes, and facilitating rehabilitation and reintegration measures.
(E) Additional Directions for Care Leavers
1. The Court directed the Union and State Governments to establish a dedicated care leavers Secretariat to function as a nodal agency and grievance redressal mechanism for children leaving institutional care. It was further directed that every child should be provided with essential identity documents, including aadhaar card, PAN card, voter identity card, domicile certificate, Ayushman Bharat card and a bank account before leaving institutional care.
2. The Court, further directed that every care leaver shall be entitled to free education upto graduation level in any Government Institution including technical/professional education. The State shall create a dedicated care leaver education and scholarship fund and provide monthly scholarship of not less than ₹4,000 for higher studies and ₹6,000 for professional courses, along with hostel facility. The Court directed the preparation of individual aftercare plans for care leavers for imparting market-linked skill training, apprenticeship and entrepreneurship development.
3. Further, the Court directed the Central and State Governments to frame and notify a comprehensive policy within 12 weeks providing 1 per cent horizontal reservation for care leavers in educational institutions and public employment. Until such policy is framed, the care leavers should be granted age relaxation and exemption from application and examination fees in government recruitment processes. The Government shall also provide financial assistance and interest-free loan up to ₹5 lakhs for self-employment, start-up and housing under aftercare support.
The Court directed that the petition be treated as Part Heard and listed the matter again on 22 November 2026 for considering compliance reports and issuing further directions.
Also read: Juvenile tried as an adult cannot face joint trial with adult accused under JJ Act: Delhi High Court
[X v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6874 of 2024, decided on 3-9-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Mr. Umesh Vyas
For the Respondent/State: Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP and Mr. Mohammed Rahil Khan
