Right To Be Forgotten By Destroying Records Of Juvenile Delinquency Is Absolute, Has To Be Given Full Meaning By The State: Rajasthan HC

In doing so the court held that “right to be forgotten” for a juvenile by way of destroying records of juvenile delinquency is an absolute right and has to be given full meaning by the State.

It further said that the State is lawfully restrained from seeking any information about the previous record of the juvenile delinquency in cases where the benefit of Section 19 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000 or Section 24 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 was given.

Section 19 of the 2000 Act and Section 24 of the 2015 Act provides that a child who had committed an offence and was dealt with under these Acts shall not suffer disqualification attached to the conviction of an offence under law.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand in his order held, "This Court further holds that the 'right to be forgotten', regarding a Juvenile, where Section 24 of the Act of 2015, shall remain a definite right and a juvenile, who has been given the benefit of Section 24 shall be entitled for erasure of his juvenile delinquency by not putting it on record anywhere, because creation or perpetuation of such record, may highlight a kind of embarrassment to the juvenile, which in turn, would certainly have an adverse impact on his future prospects, which includes a selection process for public employment, and goes against the legislative intention of juvenile laws". 

"This Court directs that the 'right to be forgotten' for juvenile by removal/destroying of the record of juvenile delinquency is an absolute right, and therefore, to give it a full meaning, the State as well as other Bodies, falling under the definition of 'State' as envisaged under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, are hereby lawfully restrained from seeking any information, in future, from the then juvenile about the previous record/information of his juvenile delinquency, in cases where the benefit of Section 24 of the Act of 2015 has been extended, so as to prevent any adverse impact of such delinquency on the future prospects of the juvenile," it added.

It thereafter held that the petitioner was under no obligation to disclose the information regarding lodging of a criminal case against him and his admonition in respect of an incident which took place when he a minor of the age of 15 years and disclosing of such information would run contrary to the spirit of JJ Act.

The court was hearing a petition against the order of the State under which the services of a constable (petitioner) were terminated on the ground that he concealed information about his involvement and conviction in a criminal case while being a juvenile.

The counsel for the petitioner argued that as per Section 19(1) of the 2000 Act, the petitioner could not be disqualified based on his conviction. Furthermore, as per Section 19(2) of the Act, Juvenile Justice Board was required to direct for removal of relevant records of such conviction after expiry of the appeal period. Since no appeal was filed in the case, petitioner believed that his relevant record of conviction were removed, and based on this bona fide belief, he did not disclose his conviction while submitting his application form.

After hearing the contentions, the Court accepted the arguments of the petitioner and referred to the similar provision of Section 24 of the 2015 Act as Section 19 of the 2000 Act, as well as Rule 14 of the Juvenile Justice (Care, Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016 (“2016 Rules”) that laid down destruction of record of conviction of a delinquent juvenile.

The Court also referred to the Supreme Court case of Union of India v Ramesh Vishnoi that dealt with a similar situation and held that even if a juvenile was convicted, the same should be obliterated so that no stigma gets attached to him/her and the juvenile could be reinstated back in the society as a normal person.

The Court held that if the juvenile board extended the benefit of Rule 24 of the 2015 Act to a convicted juvenile by removing the disqualification, coupled with the language of the Section that required destroying the of such conviction record, then pursuant to such benefit under Section 24, the juvenile could not be considered ineligible for any future public employment based on such conviction.

It was held that Section 24 of the 2015 Act read with Rule 14 of the 2016 Rules provided for right to be forgotten for a juvenile for safeguarding their future prospects.

“On a conjoint consideration of the 'right to be forgotten'… as well as the enactment of Sections 3 (xiv) & 24 of the Act of 2015 and the Rule 14 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016, this Court observes that in the cases of juvenile delinquency, if any criminal antecedent record of a juvenile is allowed to remain intact, to be accessed, amongst others, by using the technology tools, the same may not only bring humiliation and discredit to the juvenile, but may also adversely impact the future prospects of the juvenile, among other things.”

The Court held that such a disclosure would defeat the purpose of the legislation by adversely impacting the rehabilitation as well as the socio-economic stability of the juvenile pushing him/her again towards criminal delinquency.

The Court further held that even when the police verification was conducted with respect to the petitioner, the police officials should have refrained from revealing such information and failing to do so was a gross violation of confidentiality and mandatory provisions of law.

Accordingly, the petition was allowed and the State was directed to reinstate the petitioner back in service.

Title: Suresh Kumar v Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 67

For Petitioner(s): Mr.Sarthak Rastogi with Mr.Tushar Kumar

For Respondent(s): Mr.Devesh Kumar Bansal with Mr.C. P. sharma