Rajasthan High Court: In a writ petition challenging the petitioner’s termination of employment based on his previous juvenile conviction, which came to light during police verification, a single-judge bench of Anoop Kumar Dhand, J., held that termination of petitioner’s employment based on an expunged juvenile conviction is against the principles of juvenile justice and rehabilitation and quashed the termination order with direction to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits.
“The children deserve the chance to evolve and grow beyond their past, shaped not by previous errors but by their potential for the future. The shadows of past transgressions should be expunged, granting them the opportunity to lead a life unburdened by stigma and brimming with possibility.”
Brief Facts
In the instant matter, the petitioner was appointed as a Constable but was later dismissed, vide an order dated 06-05-2008, for concealing his past criminal conviction. The petitioner was a juvenile at the time of the offense and was tried by the Juvenile Justice Board under Sections 436, 457, and 380 of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The Board found him guilty but did not impose a sentence, instead releasing him on admonition after counselling, vide order dated 16-11-2004. The petitioner did not disclose this conviction in his application for employment, believing that under Section 19(1) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (JJ Act), he was not required to do so, as a juvenile conviction does not result in disqualification.
Moot Point
-
Whether the petitioner’s non-disclosure of his juvenile conviction warranted termination of his employment?
-
Whether the petitioner was legally disqualified from public employment due to his past juvenile conviction?
-
Whether the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, particularly Sections 19 and 24, provide a right to be forgotten in cases of juvenile offenses?
Parties’ Contentions
The petitioner argued that his conviction as a juvenile does not create a disqualification under the law, as per Section 19 of the JJ Act, 2000 and Section 24 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act, 2015). It was contented that since no appeal was filed against his conviction, the relevant records should have been expunged automatically, and he was under the bona fide belief that he was not required to disclose them. It was lastly contended that the purpose of the JJ Act is to rehabilitate and reintegrate juveniles into society, ensuring they are not burdened by their past mistakes therefore, the termination order violates the principle of “fresh start under Section 3(xiv) of the JJ Act, 2015 which mandates the erasure of juvenile criminal records except in exceptional cases.
However, respondents contended that the petitioner deliberately concealed material information about his past conviction, which reflects his character and integrity. It was argued that the employer has the discretion to determine whether a candidate is fit for service, and the concealment of such information justified the termination. It was further argued that the petitioner’s past criminal involvement, even as a juvenile, affects his suitability for a disciplined force like the police.
Court’s Analysis
JJ Act and Provisions
The Court analysed Section 19 of the JJ Act, 2000 and Section 24 of the JJ Act, 2015 and emphasised that a juvenile shall not suffer any disqualification due to a past conviction. It was noted that Section 21 of JJ Act, 2000 prohibits publication of the name of the juvenile. It was noted that Section 24(2) of JJ Act, 2015 mandates the removal of conviction records after a specified period. Additionally, Rule 14 of the Juvenile Justice (Care, Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016 (JJ Rules) deals with the destruction of record of conviction of a child in conflict with law, after expiry of the period mentioned therein.
No Concealment of Facts
The Court held that the non-disclosure of the conviction by the petitioner does not amount to concealment since Section 24 of the JJ Act, 2015 mandates the erasure of juvenile delinquency records. The Court asserted that the legislative intent behind Section 24 is to ensure that juveniles who have served their punishment are not disadvantaged in their future prospects.
“Section 24 of the Act of 2015 and Rule 14 of the Rules of 2016 provides that the “right to be forgotten” for a juvenile is an absolute right for safeguarding their future prospects.”
Right to Employment
The Court asserted that the conviction cannot be used to the detriment of the petitioner’s employment prospects. The Court stated that the benefit granted under Section 24 must be honored, ensuring the petitioner is not unfairly disqualified. The Court reiterated that a conviction under juvenile laws is not to be treated as a disqualification for public employment.
Right to Forgotten
The Court referenced the Delhi High Court’s judgment in Jorawer Singh Mundy v. Union of India, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 2306 where the ‘right to be forgotten’ was recognised and emphasised that juvenile records should not be held against individuals seeking employment. The Court stated that such a disclosure of records would not only affect the ‘right to be forgotten’ of a juvenile but would also defeat the very purpose and intent of the legislature behind enacting the JJ Act, 2015 and incorporating Section 24 therein.
“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 Court relied on several precedents, including Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Pradeep Hooda, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 2671, which upheld the right of juveniles to seek employment without stigma; Mukesh Yadav v. Union of India, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 12581, where it was held that a juvenile conviction should not hinder employment opportunities and Union of India v. Ramesh Vishnoi, (2019) 19 SCC 710, where the Supreme Court reinforced the principle of “fresh start” for juveniles and held that “even if a juvenile is convicted, the same should be obliterated, so that no stigma could attach on the juvenile with regard to any crime committed by him as a juvenile. This is done with a clear object to reinstate such juvenile back in the society as a normal person.”
The Court held that juveniles have an absolute right to be forgotten concerning their past delinquency. The Court further asserted that the public authorities and bodies under Article 12 of the Constitution of India are lawfully restrained from seeking past juvenile records where the benefit of Section 24 has been granted.
Breach of Confidentiality by Police
The Court observed that the police should have refrained from revealing the petitioner’s erased conviction history during verification. The Court deemed the breach of confidentiality by police, a gross violation of the mandatory provisions under the Juvenile Justice Act.
Court’s Decision
The Court held that —
-
The petitioner’s conviction as a juvenile does not constitute a disqualification for public employment.
-
The petitioner acted under a bona fide belief that his record had been expunged and, therefore, did not intentionally conceal information.
-
The purpose of the JJ Act is rehabilitation, not continued punishment. The right to be forgotten applies, and petitioner’s record should not be used to deny him employment.
The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashed the termination order and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits.
[Suresh Kumar v. Union of India, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11054/2008, Decided on -01-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Sarthak Rastogi with Mr. Tushar Kumar, Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. Devesh Kumar Bansal with Mr. C. P. sharma, Counsel for the Respondents
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Constitution of India HERE
