Conviction For Trivial Offence As Juvenile No Bar To Employment In Defence Services: MP High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court empahsizing the beneficial nature of the Juvenile Justice Act, has held that trivial juvenile offences would not bar the candidate from securing employment in the Military force. The division bench of Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf observed; "We are in the full agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the said...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court empahsizing the beneficial nature of the Juvenile Justice Act, has held that trivial juvenile offences would not bar the candidate from securing employment in the Military force.
The division bench of Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf observed;
"We are in the full agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the said offences are trivial and not covered by the exception to the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act. Mere conviction of the respondent would not be a bar to the respondent securing an employment and it would also not make any difference in case the respondent had not disclosed the same in his verification form".
The appellant, Union, challenging the order of August 24, 2025 by which the writ appeal filed by the candidate was allowed, directing the Union to issue an appointment order of the post of Trade of Solider (General Duty).
The candidate had participated in the recruitment advertisement issue in 2018 and successfully cleared the physical, medical and written examinations. However, during verification stage, he was denied an appointment on the ground that he had a prior criminal conviction.
Aggrieved, the candidate filed a writ petition arguing that the offence was minor in mature and relied on Section 24 of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, which privides that a juvenile's past conviction should not result in disqwulification under any law.
The Single Judge examined and facts and noted that the candidate was charged for using obscene language, minor assault and criminal intimidation. The candidate had pleaded guilty and was fined ₹1,000 by the Juvenile Justice Board, which also clairifed that the conviction would not adversely affect his future.
The bench noted that the offences were trivial and not covered by the exceptions to the provision of Juvenile Justice Act. The bench emphasized that the mere conviction of trivial offences would not bar the canddate from securing employment.
The court also highlgihted the beneficiary nature of the Juvenile Justice Act, expanding that the Act does not carve out exception with regarding to service to whcih a person is seeking employment and aims to give opportunity to the Juvenile to come back in the main stream and have a fresh start.
"Juvenile Justice Act does not carve out any exception with regard to the service to which the person is seeking an employment. In terms of the Juvenile Justice Act, the entire records has to be sealed and erased and nothing done by a person when he was a Juvenile, unless covered by the exception, is to be an embargo in his future. The provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act are beneficial and for the purpose of giving an opportunity to the Juvenile to come back in the main stream and to have a fresh start in his future."
Thus, the appeal was dismissed.
Case Title: Union of India v Pushpraj Singh, WA-3076-2025
For Union: Additional Solicitor General Sunil Jain with Advocate Piyush Bhatnagar
For Candidate: Advocate Rohit Sohgaura