In a significant ruling upholding the protective mandate of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the Supreme Court of India quashed the disclosure of a juvenile conviction in an official character certificate. The Court emphasized that a rehabilitated juvenile should not suffer lifelong disqualification due to past transgressions.
Background of the Case
The case originated when Lokesh Kumar, the appellant, approached the Supreme Court challenging an order of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, which had dismissed his writ petition on grounds of alternative remedy. Kumar, who was convicted as a juvenile for offences under Sections 294, 506, and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), had been sentenced by the Juvenile Justice Board in Criminal Case No. 203 of 2021 to sit before the Board till the rising of the Board and was fined ₹600.
In 2024, while applying for a job at SIS Case Services Ltd., Raipur, he was required to submit a character certificate. The Superintendent of Police, Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh, issued a certificate dated July 9, 2024, which disclosed his past juvenile conviction. Aggrieved, Kumar filed WPCR No. 313 of 2024 before the High Court, arguing that such disclosure contravened Section 24 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, which mandates the removal of disqualifications attached to juvenile convictions. The High Court dismissed the petition, leading Kumar to approach the Supreme Court through SLP(Crl.) No. 851/2025.
Legal Issues Involved
The Supreme Court primarily examined the following questions:
Whether the mention of a juvenile conviction in a character certificate violates Section 24 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the petition solely on the ground of an alternative remedy under the Act.
Whether a juvenile’s past conviction can lawfully impact future employment opportunities.
Observations and Judgment
The Supreme Court, comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the protective intent of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. The Court cited Section 24 of the Act, which explicitly removes any disqualification arising from a juvenile conviction.
Quoting the Act, the Court observed:
“A child who has committed an offence and has been dealt with under the provisions of this Act shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attached to a conviction of an offence under such law.”
The Court further relied on Section 3(xiv) of the Act, which enshrines the “principle of fresh start”, stating:
“All past records of any child under the Juvenile Justice system shall be erased, except in special circumstances.”
Rejecting the High Court’s reasoning, the Supreme Court held that merely providing an alternative remedy to challenge the conviction does not address the core issue—the continued stigma and discrimination arising from its disclosure.
Key Ruling and Directions
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order dated August 27, 2024 and quashed the mention of the appellant’s juvenile conviction in the character certificate dated July 9, 2024.
It directed all concerned authorities, including the police and other public bodies, to ensure that the appellant’s juvenile conviction does not appear in any future background verification, character certification, or screening processes.
The Court underscored that juvenile convictions, unless falling under specific exceptions, must not be disclosed or used to bar employment or other opportunities.
