Non-Disclosure of a Juvenile Conviction Erased Under Section 24 JJ Act Is Not Concealment: Rajasthan High Court

The petitioner, anonymised here as ‘J’, applied for the post of Constable under a 2019 advertisement, answering ‘No’ to the question whether any criminal case had been registered against him. He was declared successful, appeared for document verification and a medical test and was placed in the selection list (paras 2, 6). On 09.07.2021 he was declared ineligible because of a criminal case (para 2.1). As a juvenile, he had been convicted on his confession by the Juvenile Justice Board and fined Rs. 700, the Board directing under Section 24 that the conviction would not disqualify him (paras 3.1, 9). The State's case was wilful concealment and unfitness found by a departmental committee under a 2017 circular (paras 4-4.2).

Relying on Supreme Court and Division Bench rulings that a juvenile's conviction must be obliterated and cannot be used to deny public employment (paras 8-8.1), the Court noted that the Board had extended the Section 24 benefit and ordered the record weeded out (paras 9.1, 11). The offence was not heinous and he was then a minor, so the conviction could not bar him from public employment (para 11). The ‘principle of fresh start’ in Section 3(xiv) and Rule 14 of the Model Rules, 2016 show the legislature's intent that past records be erased and not count against a juvenile's future (paras 12-12.2). Drawing on the ‘right to be forgotten’ discussed by the Delhi High Court in Jorawer Singh Mundy, the Court treated that right for a juvenile, read with Section 24, as absolute (paras 13-13.2). His ‘No’ was therefore justified and a valid excuse in law (paras 10, 14). The judgment cited by the State did not deal with juvenile delinquency (para 17).