The Delhi High Court has held that the identity of a person, against whom a criminal case was lodged when he/she was a minor, should not be disclosed at any stage of their life as it defeats the purpose of juvenile justice law.
A Bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Rekha Palli said that the underlying object of the law prohibiting publication of name of ‘juvenile in conflict with law’ is to protect them from any adverse consequences on account of the conviction for an offence, committed as a juvenile .
Dismissed from service
The Bench made the remark while directing the Railway Board to reinstate a constable in Reserved Police Force (RPF) who was dismissed from service for not revealing a criminal case lodged against him while filling his form for the job.
The constable had moved the high court contending that the proceedings against him were conducted at a Juvenile Justice Board in Bihar's Gopalganj which acquitted him in August 2015.
He argued that as he was 12 years old at the time of the alleged offences of rioting and attempt to murder, he was not required to disclose this information. On the other hand, the Railway Board took the stand that the man had deliberately omitted vital information with regard to a criminal case against him that was pending trial at the time of his filling the attestation form, after being selected to the post of constable.
The High Court refused to accept the contention of the Railway Board that the man was under an obligation to disclose this information saying it was “contrary to the very spirit of the (Juvenile Justice) Act”.
The court said that the object of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act is to ensure that no stigma is attached to a juvenile in conflict with law once he has been reformed.
“…there was no good reason for the respondents (Railway Board) to have insisted that the petitioner ought to have disclosed the information relating to the allegations against him pertaining to an offence that was committed during his childhood where he was tried by the Juvenile Justice Board, and subsequently acquitted,” the High Court remarked.
Police verification
It said that even when police verification regarding the man was conducted on the directions of the authorities, the officials concerned ought to have refrained from revealing the information pertaining to him in the criminal case as he was a juvenile at the time.
“This was in fact a gross breach of confidentiality contemplated under the Act,” it said. The court set aside the May 11 order of the Railway Board and directed the man to be reinstated as constable within 12 weeks along with all the consequential benefits, excluding back wages.
