Right To Be Forgotten For Juvenile By Removal/Destroying Of Record Of Juvenile Delinquency Is An Absolute Right: Rajasthan High Court

The Court quashed the Order of termination of a constable (Petitioner) who was dismissed from service for concealing his past conviction as a juvenile. The Court directed his reinstatement with all consequential benefits, holding that a juvenile’s past conviction cannot be used to disqualify them from public employment.

A Single Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held, “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.”

Advocate Sarthak Rastogi represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Devesh Kumar Bansal appeared for the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The Petitioner was dismissed by the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) on the ground that he did not disclose his past conviction for offences under Sections 436, 457, and 380 of the IPC. The Petitioner was tried by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJ Board) and found guilty but was released on admonition after his counselling.

The Petitioner contended that under Section 19(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (JJ Act), a juvenile’s conviction does not result in any disqualification. He argued that he believed his conviction record had been expunged, and therefore, he had no obligation to disclose it in his application for employment.

Court’s Reasoning

The High Court, after examining the provisions of the JJ Act, held that a conviction as a juvenile could not lead to any disqualification in getting public employment as he was a juvenile at the time of committing the offence and during trial.

The Court emphasised that Section 24 of the JJ Act provides a ‘right to be forgotten’ and held that “arising of such circumstances, would also result into defeating the very legislative intent of the Act of 2015, more particularly, as regards the future employment and the like prospects of a juvenile, as thereby, the rehabilitation of the juvenile and his socio-economic stability would be adversely impacted, which may lead the juvenile to again resort to the criminal delinquency.”

The Bench also explained that “non-furnishing of the information by the petitioner regarding his juvenile delinquency and conviction, has to be accepted as a valid excuse under law and such previous negativity of the past/ the previous criminal delinquency, cannot be permitted to be used to the detriment of the incumbent like the present petitioner, with a view to oust him from the recruitment exercise as involved herein, thereby adversely impacting the career prospects of the petitioner, despite having been extended the benefit of Section 24 of the Act of 2015.”

“Keeping in mind that no stigma is attached to a juvenile in conflict with law, in the considered view of this Court, when once the juvenile has been extended a protective umbrella under the above enactment, then there was no good reason available for the respondents to have insisted that the petitioner ought to have disclosed the information relating to the allegations against him, pertaining to an offence that was committed during his minority, where he was tried as a juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board,” the Court remarked.

Consequently, the Court held, “Looking to the mandatory provisions contained under Section 19(2) of the Act of 2000 and Section 24 of the Act of 2015, this Court finds no substance in the arguments of the respondents that the petitioner was under an obligation to disclose the information with regard to lodging of criminal case against him and his admonition in the said case with respect to an incident which had taken place, when he a minor of the age of 15 years and disclosing of such information would run contrary to the spirit of the Act of 2000.”

Cause Title: Suresh Kumar v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:RJ-JP:6012)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Sarthak Rastogi and Tushar Kumar

Respondents: Advocates Devesh Kumar Bansal and C. P. Sharma

Click here to read/download the Judgment