The Allahabad High Court recently expressed "serious concern" about the quality of the State education system after a girl who studied only up to Class V told the Court she could not read a Hindi newspaper or write anything in Hindi except her name.

"Questions inevitably arise as to why the prosecutrix attended school only up to Class V. Why was the State unable to ensure that she continued her education, or otherwise compel her to remain in school until she completed Class XII?", a bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev remarked.

Significantly, the Court added that the quality of the State education system was, "to put it mildly, a matter of serious concern".

The bench made these observations in a habeas corpus petition concerning a pending case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The petitioner no. 1 (Rakesh Yadav alias Pappu), had sought the production of a girl, with whom he had eloped in 2025 and who subsequently gave birth to his child.

Courtroom proceedings

On October 5, the Court considered the girl's educational background while weighing the broader circumstances of the case.

The bench interacted with the girl and asked whether she could read a Hindi newspaper. She answered in the negative.

The bench further asked whether she could write her name. She answered in the affirmative. However, when asked whether she could write anything else in Hindi besides her name, she said she could not.

The Court expressed concern over the fact that a girl who had reportedly studied up to Class V could not read a newspaper in her mother tongue.

"It is equally shocking that a child who, according to the record and as stated by the learned counsel for the State, had studied up to Class V, was nevertheless unable to read a newspaper in her mother tongue", the bench observed.

"It is even more disturbing that she stated that she could only put her signature and could not write anything more than that in Hindi", it added.

While examining the circumstances of the case, the Court observed that expecting a child of about 15 years of age to understand the legal liabilities and consequences arising from her conduct would require the State, in the first instance, to ensure that she receives meaningful education.

State must ensure that a minor remains meaningfully engaged in education until attaining the age of majority and is provided with adequate opportunities to acquire vocational skills and, ultimately, stand on her own feet, the bench said.

Not only that, the bench also questioned the State as to why her education ended at Class V and why the State failed to ensure she continued studying.

"Questions inevitably arise as to why the prosecutrix attended school only up to Class V. Why was the State unable to ensure that she continued her education, or otherwise compel her to remain in school until she completed Class XII?", the bench said.

The Court also interacted with the girl's father, who stated that he was illiterate and had never attended school.

He said he worked as a laborer and earned about ₹10,000 to ₹12,000 per month. He was the family's sole earner, supporting four children who had not yet started earning and his aged parents, whose care and support were also his responsibility.

The bench considered the family's circumstances relevant while examining the social realities surrounding the case.

It observed that a considerable section of the population may not be aware of the rights guaranteed under law and the Constitution, much less the duties, obligations and legal consequences arising from them.

The Court said that, although ignorance of the law cannot excuse its violation, the implementation of the law must also be examined in the context of the circumstances in which people live.

In its order, the Court also requested the Law Commission to recommend suitable amendments to the provisions of the POCSO Act 2012, dealing with minor couples after examining the social realities prevailing in India.

The division bench observed that, in certain circumstances, strictly applying the Act could produce consequences that may "advance injustice rather than justice", particularly where a relationship has resulted in the birth of a child.

The Court suggested that possible suggestions on amendments could include vesting Special Judges with adequate discretion in exceptional cases, such as the present one, to consider the circumstances of the case while determining the appropriate punishment

It also asked the Law Commission to examine alternative forms of punishment, including community service, where a family formed in circumstances arising from ignorance of the POCSO Act risks being unnecessarily disrupted.

Court's order on the merits of the case

According to the petitioners, the couple had eloped and executed an affidavit dated September 1, 2025, declaring themselves husband and wife.

The State and the girl's father maintained that her date of birth was July 25, 2010. After she was recovered, she was sent to a Bal Griha, where she subsequently gave birth to a child.

While dealing with the Habeas corpus pleas concerning the girl, the Court noted that no school-issued date-of-birth certificate or birth certificate from a municipal authority or panchayat was on record.

However, the bench noted an ossification test that assessed her age at approximately 18 years.

Referring to Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, the bench held that the girl was a major. Because she expressed a desire to live with the man, the Court allowed the habeas corpus petition and permitted her to leave with him.

Importantly, the bench clarified that the trial court dealing with the pending POCSO case would not consider its factual observations in the habeas corpus proceedings.

Accordingly, it directed the trial court to deal with the matter strictly in accordance with law and solely on the basis of the evidence led and recorded in those proceedings.