AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India making a prayer for issuance of writ or suitable direction to respondent authority to grant Commission to petitioner.
Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that petitioner has completed his training under Officer In-charge, OTA at Chennai. Respondent No.4 has initiated withdrawal proceedings against petitioner on ground that petitioner has furnished false information in application form for induction into academy and for grant of Commission in Army. It is submitted that no false information was furnished by petitioner in application form. Information is related to a criminal case against petitioner. It is submitted that petitioner is having protection of Section 24 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 (hereinafter referred to "Act of 2015"). As per said Act, said information cannot be disclosed and same is prohibited. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner has relied upon order dated 15.04.2026 passed in WA No.3076/2025 (Union of India Vs. Pushpraj Singh). In said case, it was held that provision of Section 24 of Act of 2015 is beneficial in nature and there is no exemption to Military Forces in application of same. Order passed by Single Bench granting relief to petitioner was dismissed. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner has also placed reliance on judgment passed by Constitutional Bench in case of Pratap Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2005) 3 SCC 551 . In said case, it was held that age of the juvenile is to be considered on the date of commission of offence. It is submitted that at the time of commission of offence, petitioner was fifteen years and ten months old and had not crossed the age of 16 years, therefore, Section 24 of Act of 2015 is applicable in case of petitioner.
Learned Deputy Solicitor General appearing for Union of India/respondents submitted that order passed in WA No.3076/2025 is under challenge. However, he is unable to point out that any stay has been granted over the order passed by this Court.
Heard the counsel for the parties.
On the date of commission of offence, petitioner was fifteen years and ten months old. Section 24 of Act of 2015 is mandatory in nature. According to said Section, a child who is less than 16 years of age and has committed an offence and has been dealt with under the provision of Act of 2015 shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attached to conviction of an offence under such law. Section 24(2), further lays down that Juvenile Justice Board shall make an order directing Police or Children's Court and Registry of the Court that relevant record of conviction shall be destroyed after expiry of period of appeal and as the case may be a reasonable period as may be prescribed. Records are to be retained if offence committed is heinous in nature. Section 74 of Act of 2015 further prohibits disclosure of identity of child. Section 74(2) of Act of 2015 further prohibits police from disclosing record of the child for the purposes of character certificate or otherwise in pending and disposed of case.
Non-disclosure of offence by a candidate who has applied for service is different from not attracting disqualification if a juvenile has suffered conviction, who was in conflict with the law and was less than 16 years of age. Act of 2015 do not give any protection for non-disclosure. Act provides that name of juvenile be screened in trials if he is less than 16 years of age and if convicted of an offence, then conviction will not be disqualification for him. Criminal records of juvenile who is not involved in any heinous offence is to be destroyed. Effort is made to hide the identity of child in conflict in law. Police is also required not to disclose any record of the child for purposes of character certificate or otherwise. Disclosure of identity etc. has also been made punishable under the Act. Reports of juvenile issued by Court is treated to be confidential.
All of aforesaid provisions i.e. Sections 24, 74 and 99 of Act of 2015 make an effort that identity of child who is in conflict with law is to be protected, so that he can come back in normal social life without any stigma of conviction in criminal case. However, Section 24(1) of Act of 2015 i.e. disqualification attached to conviction is not applicable when child is above 16 years of age. Further Court and Registry is required to preserve the records of a juvenile who is involved in heinous offence. There can not be complete bar for disclosure of offence by a candidate. Aspirant for job with Union of India and State Government has to disclose the offence so that recruiting body can know whether offence is heinous or not and how same is to be dealt with under the Act of 2015. Of course if offence is trivial or grievous, no disqualification is attached but if offence is heinous, then employer is free to reject a candidature. Non-disclosure in respect of a grievous and heinous offence may call for rejection of candidature as there can be no protection if heinous offence is committed and candidate is also dishonest by screening the offence by non-disclosure.
Act of 2015 no where makes any provision that a candidate who has become major and has applied for job is not duty bound to make disclosure of committing an offence. If non-disclosure is in respect of trivial offence, then said non-disclosure will not have any effect and his case can be considered for appointment but if non-disclosure is in respect of heinous offence like rape, dacoity, murder, attempt to murder, then in such cases there has to be disclosure. It is for Employer to consider whether they will like to engage such person in employment or not. While considering grant of employment, employer has to consider the effect of Act of 2015, but there has to be disclosure, so that employer is aware that juvenile is involved in heinous offence and whether such candidate will be fit to be a public officer, who will be taking responsible duties. Protection of juvenile is to be balanced with welfare of society, therefore, in cases of conviction or acquittal in heinous offences a candidate is dutybound to make disclosure.
Judgments which has been cited by petitioner i.e. Writ Appeal No.3076/2025 (Union of India & Others vs. Pushpraj Singh) decided on 15/04/2026 is of no consequence in this case as in said case offence was of triable nature and offences were under Sections 294, 323, 34 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. In another case of Ravindra Kumar Vs. State of U.P., 2024 SCC Online SC 180 offences were under Sections 324, 352 and 504 of Indian Penal Code. Offences were not of heinous in nature.
Juveniles who are in conflict with law for heinous offences cannot be equated with juveniles who has committed trivial offence. In present case petitioner has committed an offence, which is heinous in nature i.e. offences under Section 302, 307, 147,148, 149 and 201 of IPC. Petitioner has been acquitted in said case. Petitioner has to make disclosure of said case, so that records can be examined by Selection Board to come to a finding whether petitioner will become a fit Officer and Soldier to serve the Country or not. In view of same, no relief can be granted to petitioner.
Writ Petition is dismissed.