Juvenile Status Protects Against Service Termination for Non-Disclosure of Criminal Case: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court quashed the termination of a Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) constable, holding that the petitioner, a juvenile at the time of an alleged offence, could not be disqualified for failing to disclose a pending criminal case in his attestation form. The Court ruled that the termination violated Sections 19 and 21 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, which protect juveniles from disqualification or stigma even after conviction.

Service Termination for Non-Disclosure of Pending Criminal Case
The petitioner, Santosh Kumar Yadav, was appointed as a constable in the SSB in 2013 after qualifying competitive recruitment tests. At the time of his appointment, he submitted an attestation form stating that he had never been arrested, prosecuted, or detained. Subsequent police verification revealed that an FIR registered in 2006, when the petitioner was 15 years old, was pending against him under Sections 323, 325, 504, and 506 of the IPC.

The petitioner’s service was terminated in 2014 under Rule 23 of the SSB Rules, 2009, for allegedly providing false information in the attestation form. This decision was upheld on appeal by higher SSB authorities in 2017, prompting the petitioner to challenge his termination before the High Court.

The petitioner argued that as a juvenile at the time of the alleged offence, he was protected under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (JJ Act). He emphasized that Section 19 of the JJ Act removes any disqualification attaching to an offence committed as a juvenile, and Section 21 prohibits disclosure of information about a juvenile’s criminal involvement.

The respondents contended that the petitioner knowingly suppressed material information about the pending FIR and was thus unsuitable for employment in a disciplined force like the SSB.

Juvenile Justice Act Prohibits Stigma and Disqualification
The Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur held that the petitioner’s termination violated the spirit and letter of the JJ Act. The Court noted that the petitioner was declared a juvenile by the Juvenile Justice Board, a finding upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Deoria, in 2017. It emphasized that:

“Section 19 of the JJ Act ensures that a juvenile shall not suffer any disqualification attaching to a conviction of an offence. This protective legislative intent allows a juvenile to reintegrate into society without stigma.” [Paras 37-38]

The Court rejected the respondents’ argument that the petitioner was obligated to disclose the pending criminal case in the attestation form, ruling that such disclosure would conflict with the protective safeguards under the JJ Act. It observed:

“Even during police verification, the concerned police station ought to have refrained from revealing information about the petitioner’s juvenile status or pending case, as doing so violated the confidentiality mandated by the JJ Act.” [Para 39]

The Court found that the petitioner’s omission to disclose the pending FIR was not deliberate misconduct but arose from his bona fide belief that he was not required to report a case filed against him as a juvenile. Moreover, records obtained through RTI showed the petitioner was neither arrested nor detained in the case.

The Court concluded that the petitioner’s termination was unlawful and set aside the impugned orders. It directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner within 12 weeks with all consequential benefits, except back wages.

The judgment underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the rehabilitative and protective intent of the JJ Act, ensuring that juveniles in conflict with law are not unfairly penalized or stigmatized in their professional lives.

Date of Decision: January 27, 2025