The court affirmed that juvenile convictions should not hinder future opportunities, as mandated by Section 24 of the JJ Act, 2015.

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal arises out of the final order dated 27.08.2024 (the “Impugned Order”) passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur (the “High Court”) in WPCR No. 313 of 2024, whereby the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the Appellant on the ground that an alternative remedy was available under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015[JJ Act, 2015]. Aggrieved by the Impugned Order, the Appellant has approached this Court seeking redress.

3. The relevant facts, in brief, are that on 10.11.2021, the Appellant was convicted by the Juvenile Justice Board [The Board] in Criminal Case No. 203 of 2021 for offences under Sections 294, 506, and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860[IPC]. It was alleged that the petitioner along with some other persons had misbehaved, abused and beaten one person. The conviction was based on the Appellant’s confession and consequently, the Board sentenced him to sit before the Board till the rising of the Board that day and imposed a fine of Rs. 600/- (Rupees Six Hundred).

4. Sometime in 2024, the Appellant applied for recruitment at SIS Case Services Ltd., Raipur. As part of the application process, he was required to furnish a character certificate from the concerned Police Station. Pursuant thereto, the Superintendent of Police, Balodabazar, issued a character certificate dated 09.07.2024 disclosing the Appellant’s juvenile conviction. The Appellant contends that this disclosure adversely impacts his employment prospects and directly contravened the safeguards enshrined in Section 24 of the JJ Act, 2015, which removes any disqualification arising from a child’s conflict with law.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the mention of his juvenile conviction in the aforesaid certificate, the Appellant preferred WPCR No. 313 of 2024 before the High Court. In the said petition, the Appellant prayed inter alia for the following reliefs:

“A. A writ and/or an order in the nature of a writ of appropriate nature do issue, commanding and directing the respondent authorities to call for the records in respect of the action taken by the respondent authorities on the complaint of the petitioner.

B. A writ and/or an order in the nature of a writ of appropriate nature and/or any direction to quash Annexure P/3, i.e., the order of conviction passed by the Juvenile Justice Board dated 10.11.2021, and consequently quash Annexure P/2, i.e., the character certificate dated 09.07.2024, issued by the Superintendent of Police, Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

C. A writ and/or an order in the nature of a writ of appropriate nature do issue, commanding and directing the State as well as other bodies falling under the definition of 'State' as envisaged under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, to restrain from seeking any information in the future from the juvenile/petitioner about the previous record/information of his juvenile delinquency, so as to prevent any adverse impact of such delinquency on the future prospects of the juvenile.

D. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

6. The Appellant’s primary contention before the High Court was that he challenged the continuing effect of his conviction under JJ Act, namely, its reflection in official documents and the attendant disqualification. The Appellant placed reliance on Section 24 read with Section 3(xiv) of the JJ Act, 2015, which mandates that all past records of a juvenile in conflict with law should be erased and should not operate as a bar to the child’s future prospects, unless the alleged offence falls within specified exceptions.

7. Vide the Impugned Order, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Appellant ought to avail the statutory remedy to challenge the conviction before the competent court under the JJ Act, 2015. Consequently, the High Court did not consider the Appellant’s prayer to quash the charac