While emphasising that no directions can be issued that go against the clear legislative intent under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, the Supreme Court held that a High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 439 CrPC is confined to the question of granting or denying bail and does not extend to issuing general administrative or legislative directions to investigative agencies, as this amounts to an overreach of its statutory power.
The Apex Court ruled that the determination of a victim’s age under the POCSO Act must strictly follow the evidentiary hierarchy prescribed in Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. A medical examination for age determination is a measure of last resort and cannot be mandated as a routine procedure at the outset of an investigation. Any challenge to the authenticity or correctness of age-related documents is a matter for trial and cannot be conclusively adjudicated by a court at the bail stage, as this would constitute an impermissible “mini-trial”.
The Apex Court has also called for circulation of a copy of this judgment to the Law Secretary, Government of India, to consider initiation of steps as may be possible to curb the menace of Romeo – Juliet clause exempting genuine adolescent relationships from the stronghold of POCSO Law; thereby enacting a mechanism enabling the prosecution of those persons who, by the use of these laws seeks to settle scores.
A Two-Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh observed that the POCSO Act is one of the most solemn articulations of justice aimed at protecting the children of today and the leaders of tomorrow. Yet, when an instrument of such noble and one may even say basic good intent is misused, misapplied and used as a tool for exacting revenge, the notion of justice itself teeters on the edge of inversion.
The Bench emphasised that the POCSO Act highlights a grim societal chasm – on the one end children are silenced by fear and their families are constrained by poverty or stigma, meaning thereby that justice remains distant and uncertain, and on the other hand, those equipped with privilege, literacy, social and monetary capital are able to manipulate the law to their advantage.
The Bench affirmed that the procedure for determining a victim’s age in POCSO cases is governed by Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. This section establishes a clear hierarchy of evidence in the form of: (i) date of birth certificate from a school or a matriculation/equivalent certificate; (ii) in its absence, a birth certificate from a corporation, municipal authority, or panchayat; and (iii) only in the absence of the above, an ossification test or other medical age determination test.
Briefly, the case originated from a FIR where the accused (Respondent No. 1) was charged under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC, 1860, and Sections 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), for the alleged abduction of a 12-year-old girl. After the Trial Court rejected bail, the matter went to the High Court of Allahabad, whereby noting inconsistencies in the victim’s age as per school records and her statements, the High Court directed the constitution of a medical board for age determination and subsequently granted interim bail.
In its final judgment, the High Court confirmed the bail and issued a series of general directions applicable to all POCSO cases within the state. The State of Uttar Pradesh challenged this final judgment before the Supreme Court, questioning the High Court’s jurisdiction to issue such directions under Section 439 of the CrPC, 1973. The High Court held that medical determination of a victim’s age under Section 164-A CrPC and Section 27 of the POCSO Act is mandatory at the commencement of an investigation. It opined that in appropriate cases, the age determined by a competent medical authority can prevail over other age-related documents, including school records.
The High Court noted systemic failures by the police to obtain medical age reports and the criminalization of consensual adolescent relationships due to falsified age records, which necessitated corrective judicial directives. Accordingly, the Court mandated that police must ensure a medical report determining the victim’s age is drawn up in all POCSO cases and produced before the bail court.
Appearances:
AOR Ruchira Goel, for the Appellant
Advocates D.S. Parmar (Amicus Curiae), Saurabh Singh, Archana, and Vedant Tiwari, for the Respondent
