1. Juvenile conviction disclosed in character certificate for employment — Challenge to disclosure under Section 24, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. (Para 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 977
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, JJ.
Lokesh Kumar - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Chhattisgarh & Anr. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No(S). Of 2025 (Arising From SLP(Crl.) No(s). 851 Of 2025)
Decided On : 18-02-2025
Important Points
The court affirmed that juvenile convictions should not hinder future opportunities, as mandated by Section 24 of the JJ Act, 2015.
Subject
Juvenile Justice - Conviction Disclosure
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Section 24 - Disclosure of juvenile conviction in character certificate - The High Court dismissed the writ petition on grounds of alternative remedy under the JJ Act, 2015, failing to recognize the protective mandate of Section 24 which prohibits disqualification due to juvenile convictions. (Paras 8, 12, 14, 17)
(B) Judicial Intervention - The court emphasized that the protective nature of Section 24 must be upheld to prevent a juvenile's past from hindering future opportunities. (Paras 15, 19)
Facts of the case:
The Appellant was convicted by the Juvenile Justice Board for offences under IPC and later faced issues with employment due to the disclosure of this conviction in a character certificate. (Paras 3, 4, 5)
Findings of Court:
The High Court's dismissal of the writ petition was erroneous as it overlooked the implications of Section 24 of the JJ Act, 2015, which aims to protect juveniles from the stigma of past offences. (Paras 16, 18)
Issues: Whether the disclosure of the Appellant’s juvenile conviction in an official character certificate contravenes Section 24 of the JJ Act, 2015. (Para 8)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition based on alternative remedies, emphasizing that Section 24 protects juveniles from disqualification due to past convictions. (Paras 17, 20)
Result: Appeal allowed.
(B) Judicial Intervention - The court emphasized that the protective nature of Section 24 must be upheld to prevent a juvenile's past from hindering future opportunities. (Paras 15, 19)
Facts of the case:
The Appellant was convicted by the Juvenile Justice Board for offences under IPC and later faced issues with employment due to the disclosure of this conviction in a character certificate. (Paras 3, 4, 5)
Findings of Court:
The High Court's dismissal of the writ petition was erroneous as it overlooked the implications of Section 24 of the JJ Act, 2015, which aims to protect juveniles from the stigma of past offences. (Paras 16, 18)
Issues: Whether the disclosure of the Appellant’s juvenile conviction in an official character certificate contravenes Section 24 of the JJ Act, 2015. (Para 8)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition based on alternative remedies, emphasizing that Section 24 protects juveniles from disqualification due to past convictions. (Paras 17, 20)
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- constitutional law
- administrative law
Table of Contents
2. Disclosure of juvenile conviction causes disqualification — Conflict with Section 24 and Section 3(xiv) of JJ Act, 2015 — Availability of alternative remedy for conviction. (Para 6 , 7 )
3. Section 24 and Section 3(xiv) mandate a fresh start and removal of disqualification to rehabilitate juveniles — Disclosure in official documents undermines this legislative intent. (Para 10 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 )
4. Juvenile convictions shall not operate as a disqualification for future prospects under Section 24, JJ Act, 2015, regardless of the availability of remedies against conviction. (Para 14 , 17 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court order set aside — Character certificate quashed — Authorities directed not to disclose juvenile conviction in future verifications. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 )
6. Does a juvenile conviction result in disqualification for employment?
No. Under Section 24 of the JJ Act, 2015, a child dealt with under the Act shall not suffer any disqualification attached to a conviction of an offence, ensuring they are not hindered in their adult life prospects. (Para 9 , 10 )
7. What is the Principle of Fresh Start under the JJ Act, 2015?
As per Section 3(xiv), the Principle of Fresh Start mandates that all past records of any child under the juvenile justice system shall be erased, except in special circumstances, to facilitate reintegration into society without stigma. (Para 9 , 13 )
8. Can a writ petition be dismissed for having an alternative remedy when the grievance is the continuing effect of a juvenile conviction?
No. While a statutory remedy may exist to challenge the conviction itself, it does not address the specific injury caused by the continuing disqualifying effect of the record, which Section 24 expressly seeks to nullify. (Para 14 , 15 , 17 )
9. Under what circumstances are records of juvenile conviction retained?
Generally, records are destroyed after the expiry of the appeal period or a prescribed reasonable period. However, records are retained in cases of heinous offences where the child is found to be in conflict with law. (Para 9 )
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
