Rajasthan HC Upholds Rejection of Juvenile Claim, Issues Sweeping Directions on Preliminary Assessment and Care Leavers

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand found that the Class-I admission form, not the matriculation certificate, controls age determination under Section 94 of the JJ Act, and issued extensive interim directions on preliminary assessments and aftercare for children leaving care homes.

The Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur has dismissed a petition challenging the rejection of a juvenile claim in a POCSO trial, holding that a Class-I school admission form showing date of birth as 14 November 2003 must be preferred over a Class-X mark-sheet showing 1 July 2006. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, sitting singly, found no error in the Special Judge's order dated 25 September 2024. The accused, Deepak Kumar, had been charge-sheeted as an adult for offences including Sections 376D, 376, 386, 363 and 354 IPC, Sections 3/4, 5/6 and 7/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Beyond the individual case, Justice Dhand issued a battery of interim directions targeting systemic failures in preliminary assessments under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and the absence of structured aftercare for children who leave care institutions upon turning 18.

The Dispute Before the Court

The petition arose from Sessions Case No. 90/2024 before the Special Judge, POCSO Act 2012 and Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act 2005, Sawaimadhopur. Deepak Kumar, through his elder brother Chetan Singh, challenged the Special Judge's order that refused to declare him a juvenile.

The petitioner's counsel argued that the Rajasthan Board of Secondary Education had issued a Class-X mark-sheet recording his date of birth as 1 July 2006. The alleged incident occurred on 28 April 2023. On that date, if 1 July 2006 was correct, the petitioner would have been 16 years and nine months old — a juvenile under the JJ Act. The petitioner had been charge-sheeted before the adult Special Court, and submitted an application during trial seeking a declaration of juvenility based on the Board certificate.

The State and the complainant's counsel opposed. They pointed to the petitioner's school admission form for Class-I, executed by his father Ram Khiladi on 3 July 2007 at the Government Senior Secondary School, Mahukala, District Gangapur City, which recorded the date of birth as 14 November 2003. On that date of birth, the petitioner would have been 19 years old on 28 April 2023. They added that if 1 July 2006 were accepted, the petitioner would have been barely one year old when admitted to Class-I in July 2007, which was inconceivable.

The Legal Issue: Primacy of School Certificate Versus Matriculation Certificate Under Section 94

Section 94 of the JJ Act lays down the hierarchy for age determination. Where there is reasonable doubt about age, the first source is the date of birth certificate from the school or the matriculation certificate from the concerned examination board. Only if neither is available does the provision turn to a birth certificate from a local body, and only in the further absence of those does it permit an ossification or medical test.

The petitioner's counsel relied on Supreme Court judgments emphasising the primacy of the matriculation certificate. Justice Dhand found those judgments distinguishable because they all involved offences committed before the JJ Act 2015 came into force, and Section 94 of the new Act was not under consideration in any of them. Those precedents, the Court held, cannot govern cases where the offence post-dates the enforcement of the JJ Act.

Under the new framework, the Court read Section 94 as placing the school certificate and the matriculation certificate at par for the first instance of consideration. The matriculation certificate no longer holds any exclusive privilege. It is then for the court or board to decide, taking into account whichever documents are available alongside other attending circumstances.

How the Bench Reasoned on the Date of Birth

Justice Dhand gave decisive weight to the Class-I admission form. The entry was made by the petitioner's own father, at the time of admission in July 2007. The Court observed that an entry made at the earliest point of a child's schooling life, closest to the birth, carries greater authenticity because there is less reason, at that stage, to manipulate age for employment or other benefits.

The Court rejected the argument that there was any discrepancy or manipulation in the year of admission. The form showed admission on 3 July 2007 to Class-I, with date of birth recorded as 14 November 2003. If the petitioner's own date of birth were 1 July 2006, he would have been approximately one year old at that time. That, the Court said, could not be believed.

The Court concluded that the Trial Judge had recorded cogent and justified reasons for rejecting the juvenility application, and no interference was warranted. The petition was accordingly dismissed on the age-determination issue.

Systemic Concerns: Preliminary Assessment Under Sections 15 and 18(3)

Before closing the matter on the juvenility point, Justice Dhand turned to two systemic failures he had observed in the State's juvenile justice apparatus. The first concerned preliminary assessments under Section 15 of the JJ Act.

Section 15 requires the Juvenile Justice Board, in cases of heinous offences allegedly committed by a child between 16 and 18 years, to conduct a preliminary assessment of the child's mental and physical capacity to commit the offence, ability to understand its consequences, and the circumstances of the alleged act. The Board may take assistance from experienced psychologists, psycho-social workers or other experts. The assessment is not a trial; it is a maturity evaluation. If the Board finds a need for trial as an adult, it may transfer the case to the Children's Court under Section 18(3).

The Court found that this assessment is not being conducted in its true spirit across Rajasthan. Psychiatrists and psychologists empanelled by Juvenile Justice Boards are submitting one-page reports, without psychological testing, without interaction with parents or teachers, and without assessing mental health or maturity. The National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences, Bengaluru (NIMHANS) has prescribed detailed guidelines titled “Guidelines for Conducting Preliminary Assessment under Section 15 of JJ Act, 2015,” covering physical and mental capacity, ability to understand consequences, circumstances of the offence, and social, family and peer background. Those guidelines are not being followed. The Court also noted that in many matters, juveniles are not sent for assessment for several months after the incident, and in some cases physicians issue reports by filling in a cyclostyled format without conducting any actual assessment. The Supreme Court's decision in Barun Chandra Thakur v. Master Bholu & Another, reported in (2023) 12 SCC 401, had clearly held that the assessment must be child-friendly and not a mere formality.

Systemic Concerns: Aftercare of Care Leavers

The second systemic issue was the absence of any effective aftercare framework for children who leave Child Care Institutions upon turning 18 — a group the Court referred to as “Care Leavers.”

Under the JJ Act, once a child ages out of a Children's Home, Observation Home, Special Home or Place of Safety, there is no statutory mechanism for shelter, education, skilling or reintegration. The Court observed that these young people step into adulthood without stable identity documents, permanent addresses or support systems. An independent survey cited in the order found that 40% of care leavers had no proof of residence, 64% had no voter cards and 54% had no PAN cards. Criminal justice records indicated care leavers are 25% more likely to be involved in crime than the general population, and 23% of young people between 18 and 21 years in the criminal justice system had spent part of their childhood in care.

The Court pointed to Mission Vatsalya, the Ministry of Women and Child Development's flagship child protection scheme launched in 2022, and to Section 46 of the JJ Act and Rule 25 of the Model Rules, 2016, as the existing statutory pegs for aftercare, while noting that very few State governments have set aside funds for this purpose and that implementation has failed.

Interim Directions Issued

Justice Dhand issued a set of interim directions organised under four heads.

Preliminary Assessment. The State Government must constitute a panel of Clinical Psychologists, Psychiatrists and Child Psychology experts in each district, trained as per NIMHANS guidelines, within six weeks. No preliminary assessment report shall be accepted by any Juvenile Justice Board in Rajasthan unless it strictly follows the NIMHANS format. The Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority (RSLSA) shall circulate the NIMHANS Guidelines to all JJBs. The Director of the Department of Medical and Health and the Principal of SMS Medical College, Jaipur, must organise a mandatory sensitisation training programme for all empanelled psychiatrists within 60 days. Each preliminary assessment must include at least three sittings with the child, interviews of parents or guardians and school teachers, and use of standardised psychological tools to assess mental age and maturity.

Aftercare. The State Government must file an affidavit disclosing existing Aftercare Homes under Section 46 of the JJ Act and Rule 25 of Model Rules, 2016, and the number of children rehabilitated in the last three years. The Department of Social Justice and Empowerment must prepare a comprehensive Aftercare and Rehabilitation Policy providing stay, continuation of studies, vocational training, counselling and financial assistance for one year to every child leaving a Child Care Institution after attaining 18 years who has no family support. The State must consider tying up with the Rajasthan Skill and Livelihoods Development Corporation and opening Industrial Training Institutes for such children.

State Juvenile Justice Council. The Government of Rajasthan must constitute a State Juvenile Justice Council within thirty days, chaired by the Chief Secretary or a nominee not below Additional Chief Secretary rank. Its composition includes the Principal Secretaries of Social Justice and Medical Health, the Member Secretary of RSLSA as convener, the Director General of Police (CID Civil Rights), a nominee of the Director of NIMHANS, two senior clinical psychologists nominated by SMS Medical College, two NGO members working in child rights, and the UNICEF Director Jaipur or nominee. The Council's mandate includes standardising the Section 15 preliminary assessment format, prescribing qualifications for empanelled psychologists, framing a State Aftercare Policy for Care Leavers aged 18 to 21 years, conducting quarterly reviews of all CCIs and Aftercare Homes, and submitting bi-annual reports to the Court.

Divisional Level Juvenile Justice Commissions. A Divisional Level Juvenile Justice Commission shall be established at each of the seven Revenue Divisions of Rajasthan (Jaipur, Jodhpur, Udaipur, Ajmer, Bikaner, Bharatpur and Kota). The Commission is to be headed by the Divisional Commissioner and co-chaired by the senior-most District and Sessions Judge of the divisional headquarter. It is to conduct monthly inspections of all CCIs, Places of Safety and Aftercare Homes, act as a bridge between the child, family and State for rehabilitation, and ensure no Care Leaver is discharged without a proper rehabilitation plan as required by Rule 25 of the Model Rules, 2016.

Additional Directions. The Union of India and the State Government are directed to establish a dedicated Care Leavers Secretariat within eight weeks, at the central level under the Ministry of Women and Child Development and at the district level under the Department of Social Justice and Empowerment. The Secretariat is to maintain a centralised digital database of every child leaving a CCI on turning 18, and is to be a single-window grievance redressal mechanism. The order directs that when a child reaches 17 and a half years, the CCI must immediately initiate documentation so that Aadhaar Card, PAN Card, Voter ID, Ayushman Bharat Card, bank account, domicile and caste certificate (where applicable) are in hand before the child leaves. No child is to leave without an Aftercare Identity Card.

On education, the Court directed that every Care Leaver be entitled to free education up to graduation level in any government institution, including technical and professional courses. The State is to create a dedicated Care Leaver Education and Scholarship Fund providing a monthly scholarship of not less than Rs. 4,000 for higher studies and Rs. 6,000 for professional courses, with hostel facility. The Central and State Governments are directed to frame and notify within twelve weeks a policy providing 1% horizontal reservation for Care Leavers in admissions to all government and government-aided educational institutions and in all categories of government services, public employment and outsourced contractual engagements. Until that policy is in place, the State must provide age relaxation of five years and fee exemption to Care Leavers in all government selection processes. Financial assistance or interest-free loans up to Rs. 5 lakhs are directed for self-employment, start-up and housing.

Compliance and Next Listing

The Chief Secretary and the Secretaries of all departments named in the order are directed to file compliance affidavits within eight weeks. The Member Secretary of RSLSA is directed to circulate the order to all Divisional Commissioners and District Judges for immediate compliance. A copy of the order is to be sent to the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs; Member Secretary of Child Development and Welfare Department, New Delhi; Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan; Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Home; Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Medical and Health; Secretary, Department of Women and Child Rights; Secretary, Department of Social Justice; Member Secretary, RSLSA; Principal of SMS Medical College and Hospital, Jaipur; Director UNICEF, Jaipur; and all Principal Magistrates posted in Juvenile Justice Boards across the State.

Order

The petition was dismissed on the juvenile age-determination issue. The matter was not closed. It has been marked “Part Heard” for the purpose of issuing further directions and listed for 22 November 2026, when compliance reports supported by affidavit, details of the established Secretariat, the number of Care Leavers identified and benefited, and the policy framed for 1% reservation are to be placed before the Court.