The 'right to be forgotten' is an absolute right for individuals who were juveniles at the time of an offence. Consequently, records of conviction for non-heinous offences must be erased to prevent stigmatization and ensure they do not hinder future employment or professional prospects.

ORDER :

1. The instant petition has been preferred for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 06.05.2019, passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Sawaimadhopur (hereinafter referred to as “the JJB”) by which the application submitted by the petitioner for review of the judgment dated 13.10.2014 passed by the JJB has been rejected.

2. The petitioner was found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 325, 336 read with Section 34 IPC. However, instead of convicting the petitioner, he was released on probation for a period of one year, with the condition that he would maintain peace and tranquility and would not repeat the same offence again and accordingly the benefit of probation under Section 15(e) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 (for short “Act of 2000”) was extended to him.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working in Saudi Arabia. The Government of Saudi Arabia on the basis of the aforesaid judgment dated 13.10.2014 passed by the JJB, wherein the petitioner was found guilty and was convicted for the above stated offences, removed him from service and denied to re-employ him.

4. Counsel further submits that even the Passport Authorities are treating the petitioner as ineligible, and the Police is also treating him as a convicted person. Hence, under these circumstances, an application was submitted by the petitioner to review the judgment dated 13.10.2014 and delete the operative portion of the judgment wherein it was stated that the petitioner is found guilty for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 325, 336 read with Section 34 IPC. He further submits that unless and until that part is deleted, the petitioner would be deprived of the opportunity to earn his and his family’s livelihood at his place of work (abroad). Hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer and the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submits that by passing the impugned judgment dated 13.10.2014, the JJB has categorically mentioned therein that the said judgment of conviction would not affect the future of the petitioner. Hence, interference of this Court is not warranted.

6. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record.

7. This fact is not in dispute that the petitioner was a juvenile at the time when the incident occurred on 05.11.2008. This fact is also not in dispute that the petitioner has faced trial for the alleged offences, as stated above, before the JJB. This fact is also not in dispute that the petitioner being juvenile, confessed the crime and on the basis of his confession, he was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 325, 336 read with Section 34 IPC. This fact is also not in dispute that instead of convicting the petitioner, benefit of probation was extended to him, since he was a juvenile at the relevant point of time and directed him to furnish a personal bond and surety bond and to maintain peace and tranquility for a period of one year, subject to the undertaking that he would not commit the same offence again in future. This fact is also not in dispute that while passing the aforesaid judgment, it has been incorporated in the order itself, that the impugned judgment will not come in the way of the petitioner