Read Time: 06 minutes

Allahabad High Court has directed Uttar Pradesh Police to consider a 32-year-old man's candidature for his appointment as constable after he was denied the same for a crime he committed when he was 16 years old, a juvenile.

In year 2006, the now 32-year-old petitioner was convicted under Section 13 of the Gambling Act for street animal/bird fight where a fine of Rs.100/- was imposed upon him.

Single Bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra held that,

“The principle of presumption of innocence of juvenile would clearly be attracted in the facts of the present case. The authorities have clearly erred in denying the benefit of public appointment to the petitioner only on account of the above criminal case.”

The court stated that the petitioner was entitled to protection under Section 19 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, which provides that, a juvenile shall not suffer disqualification due to conviction in an offence which he has committed and has been dealt punishment for.

The court reiterated a Division Bench judgement of the court that Section 19 of the Act of 2000 has been incorporated in order to give a juvenile an opportunity to lead his life with no stigma and to wipe out the circumstances of his past, so that a juvenile shall not suffer any disqualification attaching to conviction of an offence under such Act.

The court said that, further, in this case,

“The petitioner has been punished on the basis of alleged admission made while he was a juvenile. It is settled that law does not recognize a juvenile to be capable of making a rational decision and the alleged act of admission on his part cannot be construed against him, so as to deny the benefits admissible to a juvenile.”

Matter in Brief

By an order in 2010, District Magistrate, Mahoba denied the petitioner character certificate for appointment to the post of Constable recording that petitioner had been punished in a case of 2006 and a fine of Rs.100/- had been imposed upon him.

Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner moved the court pleading that he was a juvenile on the date of occurrence of the offence, and therefore being a juvenile, he was entitled to the protection of the Act of 2000.

Allowing the writ petition to succeed, the High Court quashed the District Magistrate order, and directed the respondent State to consider the petitioner for appointment.

Court held that his candidature would not be overlooked only on account of his implication in the aforesaid criminal case.

Court further directed the required actions to take place within two months from the date of the copy of the order being presented.

Case Title: Rahul Modi v. State of UP and Ors.