Age proof by school or birth certificate overrides medical assessment under Juvenile Justice Act: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday held that statutory documents under the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act (like matriculation certificate and birth certificate) will take precedence over medical assessments while determining the age of an individual accused under the Act [Rajni vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr].A Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan said that once the date of birth certificate issued by the school and the birth certificate from the municipal authority are on record, the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) has no authority to rely on a medical opinion for age determination.It noted that the JJB’s rejection of documentary evidence and reliance on the ossification test, which pegged the accused’s age at 21 years, was legally unsustainable. It affirmed the findings of the appellate court that the accused, whose date of birth was recorded as September 8, 2003, was 17 years and three months old on the date of the alleged offence..The case stemmed from a murder that took place on February 17, 2021 in Uttar Pradesh's Meerut. The proceedings before the JJB had initially resulted in the accused being declared not a juvenile, with the JJB relying on a medical board’s report assessing his age as approximately 21 years. However, on appeal, the Additional District and Sessions Judge (POCSO Court) reversed the finding on October 14, 2021 by relying on a school certificate and a birth certificate which recorded the accused’s date of birth as September 8, 2003, making him 17 years, 3 months and 10 days old on the date of the offence. .The High Court, by its order dated May 13, 2022, upheld the Sessions Judge’s view and held that once a high school certificate was available on record, the JJB was not justified in ordering a medical examination. It emphasised that under Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act of 2015, age must first be determined based on school records or birth certificates, and only in the absence of such records can medical tests be ordered.The victim's mother (appellant) thereafter approached the Supreme Court challenging both the declaration of juvenility and the High Court’s grant of bail to the accused which had been ordered on the same day. .Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that the accused was a habitual offender with multiple FIRs and had misused the protections under the JJ Act to defeat justice in a murder case. It was also submitted that medical evidence, including the ossification report, clearly indicated that the accused was above 18 years of age and that the JJB’s initial order declaring him an adult was well-founded. The appellant further contended that the High Court erred in not invoking Section 15 of the JJ Act, which permits a preliminary assessment and trial as an adult in cases involving heinous offences by juveniles aged 16 to 18. .However, the apex court declined to interfere with the High Court's findings. On the issue of juvenility, the Court held that the JJB’s decision was legally flawed for having resorted to medical testing despite the availability of valid school and municipal records. It noted that the Meerut Municipal Corporation birth certificate was issued in June 2020, prior to the incident and the high school certificate was consistent with the claimed date of birth. "The line of reasoning adopted by the JJB is totally fallacious. When the concerned birth certificate from the school was available as well as birth certificate issued by the Meerut Municipal Corporation, JJB could not have opted for ossification test," the Court concluded.Citing judicial precedents, the Court reiterated that ossification tests can only be a last resort and do not override documentary proof under Section 94."The statute is very clear that only in the absence of the certificates under clause (i) and clause (ii) of subsection (2) of Section 94 can the JJB order for an ossification test or any other medical test to determine the age of the juvenile. The certificate of the Meerut Municipal Corporation was issued on 08.06.2020 before the date of the incident. In any event, it was not open to the JJB to go behind the available school certificate or the birth certificate of the Corporation and record evidence to examine the correctness or otherwise of such certificate. This is not the mandate of Section 94(2) of the JJ Act, 2015," the Court made it clear. .On the question of bail, the Court noted that the accused had been out on bail for over three years without any allegation of misuse. However, it clarified that liberty is subject to future conduct and the appellant or State remains free to seek cancellation of bail if there is any violation. Therefore, it proceeded to dismiss the appeal..The appellant was represented by advocates Amita Singh Kalkal and Devvrat Pradhan. The respondents were represented by advocates Vijendra Singh, Kumar Abhinandan, Vinod Kumar, Apurva Singh, Krishna Pandey and Praveen Chaturvedi. .[Read Judgment]