Court rejects plea to treat accused as juvenile based on Class-X certificate, emphasizes need for child-friendly preliminary assessments and robust aftercare policies for care leavers
In a significant judgment delivered on September 3, 2026, the Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) in the case of Deepak Kumar v. State of Rajasthan clarified the method of age determination under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act) and issued wide-ranging directions to strengthen the juvenile justice system in the state.
The petitioner, Deepak Kumar, challenged the rejection of his application to be tried as a juvenile in a heinous offence case. The Special Judge, POCSO Act, had relied on the petitioner's school admission form from Class-I, which recorded his date of birth as November 14, 2003, and rejected his claim that he was a juvenile based on his Class-X mark-sheet showing birth date as July 1, 2006. The Court upheld the trial court's decision, holding that the earliest and most authentic record-the date of birth in the school admission form closest to the time of birth-must be preferred over matriculation certificates or later documents. The Court observed that admitting a one-year-old child to Class-I was "wholly inconceivable," thus supporting the correctness of the school admission record.
The Court elaborated that under Section 94 of the JJ Act, the determination of age must prioritize the birth certificate from the school or, if unavailable, the matriculation certificate. This statutory framework removes the exclusive privilege earlier accorded to matriculation certificates. The Court found no merit in the petitioner's plea of manipulation in school admission records and affirmed his being over 18 years of age at the time of the alleged offence on April 28, 2023.
Beyond the immediate case, the Court took suo motu cognizance of systemic issues plaguing juveniles in conflict with law (CCL). It issued comprehensive directions aimed at reforming two critical aspects:
1. Preliminary Assessment under Sections 15 and 18(3) JJ Act:
The Court underscored the necessity of a detailed, child-friendly, and scientific preliminary assessment of juveniles accused of heinous offences to evaluate their mental and physical capacity and understanding of consequences. It mandated that such assessments comply with guidelines issued by the National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (NIMHANS), Bangalore, including multiple sittings, interviews with parents and teachers, and use of psychological tools. Mechanical or perfunctory assessments were condemned.
2. Aftercare for Care Leavers Turning 18 Years:
Highlighting a grave gap in the juvenile justice framework, the Court noted that children leaving Child Care Institutions (CCIs) upon attaining 18 years often face homelessness, lack of identity documents, education, vocational training, and employment opportunities. This leads to social exclusion, emotional distress, and vulnerability to crime. The Court issued detailed directives for the State Government to formulate aftercare policies, create dedicated aftercare homes, provide scholarships and skill training, and establish a "Care Leavers Secretariat" as a nodal agency for support and grievance redressal.
In addition, the Court directed the constitution of a State Juvenile Justice Council and Divisional Level Juvenile Justice Commissions to monitor implementation, ensure proper rehabilitation, and review the functioning of CCIs, aftercare homes, and preliminary assessments.
The Court's judgment resonates with constitutional mandates guaranteeing child rights under Articles 15, 21, and 39, and aligns with international conventions like the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
This landmark ruling sends a clarion call to the Centre, State Governments, and all stakeholders to urgently overhaul juvenile justice mechanisms-strengthening age determination protocols, ensuring scientific assessment, and providing holistic aftercare-thereby safeguarding the rights and dignity of vulnerable children and youth.
Bottom Line:
Determination of age under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 should prioritize the earliest and most authentic records, such as the date of birth mentioned in the school admission form closest to the time of birth over matriculation certificates. Additionally, systemic reforms in preliminary assessment and aftercare for children leaving care homes are urgently needed.
Statutory provision(s):
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 Sections 15, 18(3), 41(1), 46, 94; Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; Information Technology Act, 2000; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for procedural references).
Deepak Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, (Rajasthan)(Jaipur Bench) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2979950
