Removal Of Disqualification And Principle Of Fresh Start Under Juvenile Justice Law

Declaration of a conviction for a criminal offence or a pending criminal proceeding is a standard part of employment application, for individuals seeking employment in government service or standing for public office. In regular parlance one may know it as a 'character certificate'. Employers including the government, carry out verification of character and antecedents to assess if the candidate is a 'fit person' and a potential employer can adjudicate the candidate's antecedents on an individual basis with objectivity.^[1] Such declarations or character certificates are also required in applications for passports and visas. However, with a view to promote the reintegration of children in conflict with the law (CiCL) and afford them a fresh start, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 safeguards them against disqualification arising from convictions.

This benefit given to CiCLs is rooted in the “Labelling Theory”^[2] in criminology studies. Stigma and labelling attached to a judicial process as well the criminal record that ensues can have negative consequences for a child and the child's family, and can lead to development of a consistent pattern of undesirable behaviour, increasing the possibility of child's future offending. The Juvenile Justice laws have provisions to ensure that a young person caught in the criminal justice system does not proceed in life with the weight and the stigma associated with being in the system and gets an opportunity to move forward with their life and contribute to society without encumbrances.

Domestic Standards

Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 removes disqualification attached to a conviction where an offender is released on admonition (Section 3) or on probation of good conduct (Section 4). These provisions are intended to promote rehabilitation and reintegration by shielding individuals from the adverse consequences of conviction, particularly the loss of economic opportunities.

The Children Act, 1960, and the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, extended a blanket benefit of removal of disqualification under Section 25 to children found guilty of offences. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as JJ Act, 2000) further enhanced this safeguard by providing for the destruction of records. Under Section 19(2) the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) could pass an order for expunging of records of CiCLs once the appeal period was over or as per the prescribed rules. Rule 99 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2007, mandated that a CiCL's record should be kept in a safe place for a period of seven years and destroyed thereafter by the Officer-in-charge or JJB, as the case may be. Significantly, the 2007 Rules for the first time espoused the Fundamental Principles of Juvenile Justice and Protection of Children and included the principle of fresh start promoting a new beginning for the child in conflict with the law by ensuring erasure of their past records.^[3]

The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as JJ Act, 2015) has replaced the JJ Act, 2000. It reiterates the fundamental principles to be followed in implementing the Act and includes the principle of fresh start, albeit with a caveat for special circumstances.

Section 24 (1) of the JJ Act, 2015, states that CiCLs who have been found guilty of committing an offence shall not suffer any disqualification. Section 24 (2) of the JJ Act, 2015 states that the JJB should direct the police or the Children's Court should direct its registry, that a CiCL's records are destroyed once the appeal period or the prescribed reasonable period has expired.

However, the benefits under Ss. 24(1) and 24(2) are not available to CiCLs above 16 years and below 18 years, who have been tried as an adult for a heinous offence and found guilty.^[4]Their records will have to be retained and they can suffer disqualification.

For all other cases, Rule 14 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016 specifies that records of conviction of a CiCL should be kept in safe custody till the expiry of the period of appeal or seven years and no longer, and should be destroyed by the Person-in-charge of the child care institution (CCI) where a CiCL is placed, JJB or Children's Court, thereafter.^[5]

To ensure that children do not suffer disqualifications owing to the pendency of proceedings, Section 74(2), JJ Act, 2015 prohibits the police from disclosing the record of the child for the purpose of character certificate or otherwise in pending or disposed cases.

Further as an added precaution, to protect the right to privacy and confidentiality of a CiCL and to avoid stigma, Rule 10(4) of the JJ Model Rules, 2016 prohibits issuing any proclamation of absconding person under Section 82 of CrPC / Section 84 of BNSS against a child.

International Standards

International standards and guidelines consistently emphasize the fundamental right to privacy for children in conflict with the law (CiCLs) to prevent stigmatization and ensure their successful reintegration into society. The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Administration of Juvenile Justice (Beijing Rules) stress the avoidance of undue publicity and labelling, requiring the respect of a juvenile's right to privacy and limiting the publication of identifying information.

Rule 8 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Administration of Juvenile Justice (Beijing Rules), 1985^[6] recognises the child's right to privacy at all stages of proceedings and prohibits, in principle, publication of information that may identify a juvenile offender. The Commentary emphasises that children are particularly vulnerable to stigma and labelling. Rule 21 further requires juvenile records to remain strictly confidential and prohibits their use in subsequent adult proceedings.

This principle of confidentiality is further reinforced by rules regarding the strict handling and restricted access to juvenile records, which are generally barred from use in subsequent proceedings. Building on this, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child recognized a child's right to privacy.

Article 16(1) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child^[7] recognises a child's right to privacy and protection against arbitrary or unlawful interference with their privacy, family, home or correspondence, and unlawful attacks on their honour and reputation. In an extension of the right to privacy to CiCLs, the Committee on the Rights of the Child in its General Comment No. 24 (2019) on Children's Rights in the Child Justice System recommends States Parties to the UNCRC to introduce rules that allow the automatic removal of children's criminal records once they turn 18 and in exceptional cases, such removal can be done after an independent review.^[8] This concept aligns with Rule 19 of the United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty (Havana Rules)^[9], which underline the importance of ensuring confidentiality of records of a CiCL and also recommend expungement of the records upon the release of the CiCL, at an appropriate time.

Implementation Challenges

Despite a clear statutory mandate for the removal of disqualification and the destruction of records, police stations persist in maintaining and providing records of CiCLs, thereby compelling individuals to petition the courts for the removal of disqualification and the expungement of such records. In some cases, even though the child was not found guilty, employers rely on the police records to deny employment as was seen in Union of India and Others v. Ramesh Bishnoi.^[10] Despite the clear enunciations by various High Court Juvenile Justice Committees barring police from disclosing records of CiCL for the purpose of character certificate^[11] persons have had to move applications before the Juvenile Justice Boards to challenge such actions. Many do not reveal their prior records as they presume, and rightfully so, that their records have been destroyed. Some have had to move applications before the various State High Courts and Supreme Court for relief where they have been disqualified from securing employment.

Significant Rulings

In Union of India and Others v. Ramesh Bishnoi, the respondent in the case applied for the position of Sub-Inspector in the Central Industrial Security Force. He was offered an appointment letter and had to fill a form stating if he had any criminal antecedents. The respondent declared that he had a case registered against him when he was a minor, but was found not guilty. The Standing Screening Committee found the respondent unsuitable for appointment on a claim that it showed moral turpitude on the part of the respondent. He challenged this and a single bench of the Rajasthan High Court directed the Appellant to ensure his appointment. On appeal, the Division Bench dismissed the matter. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court of India, which held that even if the respondent had been found guilty, his status as a CiCL at the time of the offence precluded it from constituting a disqualification for appointment. It held:

“The thrust of the legislation, i.e. The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 as well as The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is that even if a juvenile is convicted, the same should be obliterated, so that there is no stigma with regard to any crime committed by such person as a juvenile. This is with the clear object to reintegrate such juvenile back in the society as a normal person, without any stigma. Section 3 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 lays down guidelines for the Central Government, State Governments, the Board and other agencies while implementing the provisions of the said Act. …

10. Further, the case against the respondent is not with regard to the suppression of any conviction or charges having been framed against him. The respondent had very fairly disclosed about the charges which had been framed and his acquittal on the basis of no evidence having been adduced by the complainant against the respondent. In our considered view, the same can also not be said to be a suppression by the respondent, on the basis of which he could be deprived of a job, for which he was duly selected after following the due process and appointment having been offered to him.

The Supreme Court emphasized the principle of 'fresh start' and reintegration, upholding the orders issued by the Rajasthan High Court.

In Suresh Kumar v. Union of India,^[12] the petitioner was terminated from the post of Constable in 2008 based on concealment of criminal antecedents during the recruitment process. He had been convicted under Section 436, 457 and 380, IPC and released on admonition in 2004 by the JJB as per the JJ Act, 2000. He challenged his termination from the services on the basis of Section 19(1), JJ Act, 2000 which provided that a juvenile shall not suffer any disqualification due to conviction. The Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) deliberated if the petitioner's past conviction under the JJ Act, 2000 justified his termination from service. The Rajasthan HC held that Section 24, JJ Act, 2015 r/w Rule 14, JJ Model Rules, 2016 provides for the “right to be forgotten”, an absolute right for safeguarding future prospects of a CiCL. It noted that the JJB order regarding the petitioner's conviction has not been appealed and thus attained finality. The petitioner was under a bona fide belief that his criminal records must have been removed and therefore he did not disclose his criminal antecedents while submitting the application form for the post of Constable.

The HC emphasized that stigma cannot be attached to a juvenile regarding any crime committed by them and the objective is to reinstate them back in the society. It also held that the police should have refrained from revealing about his records during the police verification and their failure to do so constituted a breach of confidentiality and mandatory provisions under the Act. The HC quashed the termination order albeit in February 2025, 17 years after the Writ Petition was filed and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner. Explaining the purpose of Section 24, JJ Act, 2015 and Rule 14, JJ Model Rules, 2016 it observed:

“19. … the intention of the legislature behind introducing Sections 3 (xiv) & 24 of the Act of 2015 as well as the Rule 14 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016, is to extend the protection to the juvenile against the conviction, and to remove the said conviction as disqualification for future prospects of the juvenile concerned. This Court also observes that the legislative intent behind such enactment is clear that if the juvenile is convicted for the offence and the concerned Court/Board is having an option to extend the benefits of Section 24 of the Act of 2015 by removing the disqualification, coupled with the fact that the language of the said Section also requires destroying of such conviction record, then after extending the benefit of Section 24 of the Act of 2015, the then juvenile concerned cannot be declared ineligible for any future employment in any government department etc. and/or any other prospects in public employment.

24. Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, speaks of 'removal of disqualification attaching to conviction', but the language employed in Section 24 of the Act of 2015 is not only for excluding or erasing the criminal antecedent record, but goes a step forward, by laying down a provision that the criminal antecedent record of a juvenile be erased/destroyed completely, so that such previous conviction or criminal delinquency of a juvenile would not be carried forward, so as to prevent any adverse impact of his previous delinquency, upon his future prospects.”

The HC further elaborated right to be forgotten in context of Section 14 and 24, JJ Act, 2015 as follows:

“30. This Court directs that the 'right to be forgotten' for juvenile by removal/destroying of the record of juvenile delinquency is an absolute right, and therefore, to give it a full meaning, the State as well as other Bodies, falling under the definition of 'State' as envisaged under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, are hereby lawfully restrained from seeking any information, in future, from the then juvenile about the previous record/information of his juvenile delinquency, in cases where the benefit of Section 24 of the Act of 2015 has been extended, so as to prevent any adverse impact of such delinquency on the future prospects of the juvenile.

In Supreet Pratap Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors^[13], the petitioner had challenged the order of the Dean of the Medical College in Bhopal who cancelled his certificate of completion of internship in 2021. A show cause notice was sent to him challenging his Pre-Medical Test examination raising doubts on his use of unfair means to secure his admission at the Medical College. The Petitioner had given the examination in 2010 and in 2019 had pleaded guilty before the Juvenile Justice Board for having used illegal means to secure admission. While the Jabalpur Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High court acknowledged the need for a fresh start for a CiCL, it distinguished between forgery for admission and the grounds for removal of disqualification and dismissed the petition upholding the cancellation of the internship certificate. The Madhya Pradesh High Court held the following:

Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that for whatever reasons, petitioner being a delinquent in that sense will be entitled to make a fresh start in his career and his past may not come in the way of such fresh start, but an admission which was secured on the basis of forgery and criminal antecedents despite being obliterated in view of the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, will not allow him to keep such degree as was secured on the foundation of illegal entry. Therefore, in the light of eight principles as enumerated in M.P. State Cooperative Bank Limited Bhopal Vs. Nanuram Yadav and others (supra), and also in terms of the interpretation to Section 3(xiv) of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 as well as Section 4 of the M.P. Recognized Examinations Act, 1937, that degree cannot be allowed to be held to be valid and maintained.

The High Court made a distinction between giving the child a fresh start which is the right of the child as opposed to securing admission based on unfair means, and hence the benefit of fresh start was not given in this case.

In Vikash Kumar v. State of Rajasthan,^[14] the petitioner was denied appointment for the post of Sub-Inspector/Platoon Commander after selection due to three FIRs in the past when he was a minor. The Rajasthan HC (Jodhpur Bench) highlighted a “compassionate and reformative approach” for young persons who commit “minor transgressions” and advocated for proportionality by administrative authorities in cases such as the present one. It held:

“15. Youth need a reformative approach to the indiscretions committed in heat of the moment, which may or may not be intentional. Societal and so should the legal perspective be, of course depending upon the nature of delinquency, that youthful indiscretions should not permanently tarnish an individual's future. A compassionate and reformative approach ought to be adopted when dealing with young individuals who may have committed minor transgressions. Young people, particularly in their late teens and early twenties, are still in the process of emotional and intellectual development. At this stage, they often act impulsively, sometimes making decisions that are not well thought out. A punitive approach that permanently brands young individuals as criminals for relatively minor mistakes contradicts the principles of justice/fairness, recidivism and reformation and reintegration into society.

16. Furthermore, the principle of proportionality must be kept in mind by the administrative authority. Not all offences are of the same gravity, and minor indiscretions should not be equated with serious crimes. In the instant case, in one of the FIRs (168 of 2015), when the petitioner was not a juvenile, though section 307 of IPC was also invoked, but the High Court quashed the entire criminal proceedings arising therefrom, including the FIR itself. The same has to be thus treated as if the FIR never existed.

17. In the context of alleged offences invoked in other two FIRs, when petitioner was a juvenile (or a minor), reference may be had Section 24 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.”

The HC directed the respondents pass appropriate orders for petitioner's appointment and that he receive notional benefits including seniority with effect from the same date his counterparts were appointed pursuant to the selection process. It also called for devising a mechanism to expunge criminal antecedents of juvenile offenders in the JJ system for advancing their rehabilitation.

“18. In fact, given the aforesaid position of law, a mechanism must be devised in juvenile justice system by expungement of records for minor offences committed by youth. This will enable their easier rehabilitation and also prevent youthful mistakes from becoming lifelong barriers to personal and professional growth.”

The judgements are clearly stating that the disclosure or non-disclosure of a case does not disqualify a CiCL from seeking employment or education. The CiCL is protected by the law and reintegration in society is encouraged giving the opportunity for a child to a fresh start.

The Supreme Court and High Courts have repeatedly intervened to uphold the 'absolute right' of a former CiCL to have their past records erased and their future prospects safeguarded, emphasizing that a punitive approach contradicts the reformative principles of juvenile justice. For the 'Principle of fresh start' to be fully realised, a mechanism for the periodic expungement of CiCL records, coupled with maintenance of strict confidentiality across all government agencies, is essential to ensure reintegration into society.

List of further relevant Judgements:

1. MD Parvej Alam v. Union of India & Ors., [2024] DHC:1477-DB
2. Akhilesh Kumar vs. Union of India [2018] DHC:1110-DB
3. Subin Joy v. State of Kerala - [2025] KER:61900
4. Dejo Karga v. The State of Arunachal Pradesh and Ors [2025] GAHC040000742025
5. R. Sabarish v. The Director & Ors., [2025] W.A.(MD)No.426 of 2024
6. The Superintendent of Police, v.S.Rajeshkumar [2023] Rev. Appln. No.17 of 2023 in W.A.No.2759 of 2018
7. Pushpraj Singh Vs. Union of India and Others, [2025] WP No. 7043 of 2021
8. Lokesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh [2025] LiveLaw (SC) 245
9. Jitendra Meena S/o Kailash Chand Meena vs. State of Rajasthan, [2024] RJ-JD:2690
10. State of Rajasthan v. Bhawani Shankar Moorh, [2023] RJJD/002510

1. Avtar Singh v. Union Of India & Ors [2016] Special Leave Petition [C] No. 20525/2011 ↑

2. Howard Becker, Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance (first published 1963, New York: Free Press) ↑

3. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2007, Rule 3, Principle XIV ↑

4. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, S. 24(1), proviso ↑

5. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, S. 24(2) and Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016, Rule 14 ↑

6. UNGA Res 40/33 (29 November 1985) UN Doc A/RES/40/33 ↑

7. UNGA Res 44/25 (20 November 1989) ↑

8. United Nations, 'General Comment No. 24' in 'Children's Rights in the Child Justice System' (2019) CRC/C/GC/24, para 71 ↑

9. UNGA Res 45/113, (14 December 1990) ↑

10. Union Of India v. Ramesh Bishnoi [2019] INSC 1302 ↑

11. Juvenile Justice Committee, Delhi High Court, 'Frequently Asked Questions under JJ Act, 2015' (2020) <https://jjcdhc.nic.in/?page_id=1619> accessed 12 March 2026 ↑

12. Suresh Kumar v. Union of India [2025] RJ-JP:6012 ↑

13. Supreet Pratap Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors [2025] MPHC-JBP:63248 ↑

14. Vikash Kumar v. State of Rajasthan [2025] RJ-JD:10078 ↑

    Author is a Program Manager (Research), Enfold Proactive Health Trust. Views are personal.