The main legal point established is that the Transfer Certificate serves as conclusive proof of a minor's age under the Juvenile Justice Act, and the court must consider it in determining the status of juvenility.

G. Chockalingam, J.

The petitioner/father of the detenue has filed this petition seeking for a direction to the respondents to produce his daughter, namely, Subbulakshmi, aged about 17 years before this Court and set her at liberty.

2. Heard Mr. A. Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. M. Maharaja, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent and Mr. S. Saravanakumar, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 4. Though notice was served on respondents 3 and 5 and their names are also printed in the cause list, none appeared for them and 6th respondent is not a necessary party in this case.

3. This Court, by an order dated 16.06.2014, has passed the following order:-

"6. We have enquired the detenue Subbulakshmi, who has stated that her date of birth is 02.06.1996, completed 18 years' of age and studied upto +2. She has admitted her marriage with the second respondent Loganathan on 03.06.2014 after attaining majority, besides informing that the second respondent has studied upto 10th standard and he is a Diploma Holder doing A/C mechanic job. She has very firmly and consistently pleaded before this Court that she may be allowed to go with the second respondent.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the date of birth of detenue is 16.05.1997 and not 02.06.1996 as per the Certificate of Births issued by the Department of Registration on 12.06.2014, whereas the stand of detenue is that her date of birth is only 02.06.1996 as entered in the Transfer Certificate duly signed by her and her mother."

4. After passing the above order, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the date of birth of the detenue mentioned in the S.S.L.C. certificate is incorrect and the date mentioned in the Birth Certificate alone is correct. He has also filed typed set of papers, which contains the Xerox copy of Birth Certificate issued by the District Registrar of Chidambaram and the Xerox copy of AADHAR CARD issued by the Government of India. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the detenue is a minor, she may be allowed to go with her father / petitioner herein. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:-

[i] (2008) 13 SCC 133 [Babloo Pasi Vs. State of Jharkhand & another]

[ii] (2009) 4 SCC 18 [Arjun Singh Vs. State of H.P.]

[iii] (2010) 3 SCC 757 [ Jabar Singh Vs. Dinesh & another] 5. The relevant portions of the decision reported in (2008) 13 SCC page 133 [Babloo Pasi Vs. State of Jharkhand & another], arequoted hereunder:-

"15. The question for consideration is that when the statutory provisions mandate and principles of natural justice demand a pre-decisional hearing, whether or not the High Court was justified in not granting an opportunity of hearing to the appellant complainant? In our opinion, having regard to the nature of controversy before the High Court and the scheme of the relevant statutory provisions whereunder the High Court was exercising its jurisdiction, the “fairness in action” did demand that the complainant was given an opportunity of hearing in the revision petition preferred by the accused. Moreover, he was impleaded as a party-respondent and was obviously prejudiced by the order passed by the High Court when the accused was declared to be a juvenile. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the High Court was clearly in error in reversing the order passed by the Board without giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Accordingly, we uphold the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the order of the High Court deserves to be set aside on this short question alone.

16. ......

17. ......

18. ......

19. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that in exercise of power conferred by Section 68 of the Act, the State Government of Jharkhand has framed the Jharkhand Juvenile Justice (Car