Back
2025 Supreme(All) 4012
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
J.J. MUNIR, J, JJ.
Smt. Joolee And Another – Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others – Respondents
Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 799 of 2025
Decided On : 07-11-2025
For the Petitioners: Jigyasha Tripathi, Surendra Kumar Tripathi
For the Respondents: Ajay Kumar Chaurasia, G.A.
The hierarchy of age determination evidence prioritizes formal birth or matriculation certificates. Unverified school records based on oral hearsay are insufficient; thus, medical ossification tests are the authoritative method for ascertaining age when primary, independently verifiable documentation is absent or unreliable.
Headnote:(A) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Section 94(2) - Age determination - Hierarchy of evidence - Statutory mandates require that in the absence of valid date of birth or matriculation certificates, medical tests serve as the conclusive measure for establishing age. (Paras 11, 12)
(B) Age Proof - Documentary reliability - School records like admission registers or transfer certificates recorded based on oral declarations without supporting documentation are not reliable for determining age under statutory provisions, as they do not constitute date of birth certificates. (Paras 9, 13, 15, 16)
(C) Habeas Corpus - Personal liberty - Determination of age is critical where allegations involve personal liberty and potential minority status - Medical opinion, such as ossification tests, provides the required certainty when primary documents are insufficient. (Paras 14, 18, 20, 21)
Facts of the case:
A habeas corpus petition was filed regarding a detenue whose age was subject to dispute, affecting the legality of a marriage and subsequent detention. Public authorities relied on school records indicating minority, while the petitioners contended the individual was a major, supported by a medical ossification test.
Findings of Court:
The school documentation produced was found to be based solely on verbal information provided by guardians at the time of school admission and lacked foundation in established birth records. The medical ossification test, conducted by a panel of medical professionals, established the individual as a major, which was accepted as the most reliable evidence.
Issues: The primary issues addressed were the admissibility and priority of school entry records versus medical examinations for determining the age of a person in the context of alleged non-consensual detention.
Ratio Decidendi: Pursuant to the statutory hierarchy of evidence, school transfer certificates or admission registers do not qualify as "date of birth certificates" under relevant legal provisions when they lack independent documentary support. Consequently, in the absence of valid primary documentation, forensic medical assessment is the authorized and authoritative method for determining age.
Result: Petition allowed; the rule nisi was made absolute, and the detenue was set at liberty.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initiation of habeas corpus proceedings to determine age and liberty. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. conflicting claims regarding the detenue's minority status. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. school records based on parental declarations are not dependable. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. strict interpretation of age determination hierarchy under jj act 2015. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. medical ossification reports as reliable age-determination evidence. (Para 14 , 17 , 18) |
| 6. granting immediate liberty to a major individual. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
JUDGMENT :
A rule nisi was granted in this case on 03.09.2025. It was followed by a number of orders. We inquired into the detenue's date of birth, or so to speak, her age, in order to determine whether she is entitled to be set at liberty and left free to go wherever she likes and stay with whomsoever she wants.
2. In compliance with the rule, the only affidavit that has been filed is an affidavit of compliance filed by the Investigating Officer of the case in a related crime. This affidavit, is therefore, treated to be the return.
3. The detenue has been produced and we proceed to hear the matter forthwith.
4. This petition for grant of a writ of habeas corpus has been filed on behalf of Smt. Joolee wife of Harsh Goswami, daughter of Madan Giri with a prayer that Smt. Joolee (for short ' the detenue') be ordered to be produced by a rule nisi of ours and set at liberty. This petition has been filed on behalf of the detenue, arraying Smt. Joolee as the first petitioner through Harsh Goswami, who has been arrayed as the second petitioner.
5. The case of the petitioner is that the detenue is a major aged about 18 years, her date of birth, being 16th April, 2007, as mentioned on her Aadhar Card. It is the petitioners' case that a First Information Report (for short 'FIR') was lodged by the detenue's father on 08.07.2025 alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 137 (2) and 351 (2) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, Police Station Sikandra, District Agra.
6. The substance of the allegations is that the detenue was kidnapped on 3rd July, 2025 in order to marry the second petitioner. The second petitioner was aided by one Lokesh Gupta in his enterprise of kidnapping the detenue.
7. On the other hand, it is pleaded by the petitioners, which includes the detenue i.e. the first petitioner, that the detenue has married the second petitioner of her freewill in the Arya Samaj, Prayagraj on 6th July, 2025. It is also the petitioners' case that the FIR last mentioned giving rise to Case Crime No. 0425 of 2025 was challenged by them before this Court by means of Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.15338 of 2025, where this Court issued notice and granted stay of arrest to the petitioners.
8. In the affidavit of compliance, which is, for all effective purposes, treated as a return in this case, it is the respondents' case that detenue is a minor, whose date of birth is 25th November, 2010, which makes her fifteen years of age. The return, that has been filed, annexes as Annexure-1 a handwritten certificate dated 16.07.2025 issued by the Principal of the Upper Primary School (Composite School), Kailash, Bichpuri Agra, certifying that the detenue's date of birth, according school records, is 25th November, 2010. There is then annexed a photostat copy of the school leaving certificate dated 07.07.2025, which indicates the detenue's date of birth to be 25th Novermber, 2010. A photostat copy of the admission register from the Upper Primary School (Composite School), Kailash, Bichpuri Agra too has been annexed to the return, where also, the detenue's date of birth indicated is 25th November, 2010.
9. We were not much convinced with the school records, which were produced before us and therefore, summoned the school leaving certificate book in original as well as the admission register. We also required Smt. Avnish Malik, the Headmistress of the School to be present in person in order to explain the re
