S. 24 JJ Act | Right To Be Forgotten By Destruction Of Juvenile Delinquency Records Is Absolute Right, State Forbidden From Seeking Such Records: Rajasthan HC

Rajasthan High Court has held that the 'right to be forgotten' by the destruction of juvenile delinquency records is an absolute right if the juvenile has been extended the benefits of Section 24 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

The single-judge bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati, while delivering the judgment in a plea against cancellation of public employment due to juvenile delinquency, also restrained the state from seeking information from individuals in the future about their previous criminal antecedents as a juvenile, wherever Section 24 has been made applicable.

“the State…. 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…”, the bench sitting at Jodhpur underscored the necessity of taking such steps to avoid adverse impact on the future prospects of juvenile delinquents who seek employment.

The case before the High Court dealt with the instance of a candidate who sought appointment to the post of police constable. Despite being meritorious in every stage of selection, he was denied appointment by respondent authorities citing the reason that he deliberately concealed criminal antecedents from his time as a juvenile.

The counsel for the petitioner candidate submitted that the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) itself observed in the conviction order for removal of disqualification as per Section 24 of the 2015 Act.

According to Section 24(2), JJB can direct the Police, or the Children's Court that the relevant records of conviction shall be destroyed after the expiry of the period of appeal or after the lapse of a reasonable period. The provision is generally applicable except for heinous offenses.

After perusing the records, Justice Bhati concluded that JJB extended the benefit of S.24 of the 2015 Act to the petitioner to ensure that his prospects including employment opportunities could be preserved.

In light of JJB's observation in the final order, the petitioner candidate rightly entered 'No' in the application form against the question regarding criminal antecedents, the single judge bench opined.

Before quashing the impugned order that adjudged the selected candidate ineligible for appointment, the court also examined Section 3 - (xiv) of the JJ Act [Principle of fresh start] and Rule 14 [Destruction of records] of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016.

“…the intention of the legislature behind introducing Sections 3 (xiv) & 24 of the Act of 2015 as well as the Rule 14 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016, is to extend the protection to the juvenile against the conviction, and to remove the said conviction as disqualification for future prospects of the juvenile concerned…”, the court said while underscoring that S.24 strictly requires destruction of conviction record.

It opined that if the antecedent records were available, it would create unnecessary embarrassment, socio-economic instability, and failure in rehabilitation.

It further held that complete erasure of the conviction record is the intention behind invoking Section 24, and the petitioner had lawfully opted not to furnish information regarding his conviction as a juvenile.

Accordingly, the respondent authorities were instructed to give an appointment to the petitioner within three months if he was found to be meritorious and eligible on all other counts.

Advocate Kailash Jangid,  Advocate Mohan Singh Shekhawat appeared for the petitioner. AAG Manish Vyas and AGC Anil Bissa represented the respondent authorities.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 24

Case: Jitendra Meena v State of Rajasthan

Case No: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9143/2021

Click Here To Read/Download Order