The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 does not recognise an Aadhaar card as a document proving an accused person's date of birth under the Act, the Kerala High Court said on Thursday.

For the purpose of determining the date of birth of the alleged kid under section 94(2)(i) of the JJ Act of 2015, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas noted that if a certificate from the school is provided that states the accused's birthdate and there is a dispute regarding their age.

“...I am of the view that if there is a certificate from the school or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the examination Board concerned that specifies the date of birth, the said document alone is acceptable as proof of age of the accused under section 94(2)(i) of the JJ Act, 2015, who claims to be a child in conflict with the law.”

But the Court made it clear that in those situations, the documents listed in Section 94(2)(ii), namely, birth certificates issued by municipal authorities or panchayats, might be considered as proof of age. Additionally, if the aforementioned documents are not available, the ossification test, which is allowed by section 94(2)(iii) of the JJ Act of 2015, may be used.

The Court further noted that the JJ Act of 2015 does not recognise the Aadhaar card as a document proving an accused's date of birth under the said Act. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner, a married Assamese man, abducted the victim when she was a minor and assaulted her in a penetrating and aggravating manner.

Petitioner asserted that because he is only 16 years old, he should be treated as a child in conflict with the law and could not have been arrested despite being charged with crimes under sections 366A, 376, and 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in addition to sections 3(a) and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act, 2012. He requested bail as an aid.

According to the petitioner's Adhaar Card, which shows his date of birth as 02-01-2006, the petitioner must be treated only like a child, which is against the law, according to the petitioner's attorney. The attorney continued by saying that the date on the birth certificate provided by the State of Assam's Department of Health Services matches the date on the Aadhar card.

However, the public prosecutor drew attention to the fact that the investigating officer had acquired the petitioner's school's transfer certificate, which listed his date of birth as 13.02.2003. This shows that the petitioner is currently 19 years old and cannot, therefore, be treated as a child in violation of the law

The Court noted that Section 94 of the JJ Act specifies the method to be followed when a person's age, who is reportedly a minor in conflict with the law, is in question. The Section requires that the kid come before the Juvenile Justice Board, and it specifies three methods for establishing age if the Board has any doubts based on appearance.

The Court further noted that, in light of the statutory requirement of section 94 of the JJ Act of 2015, the birth certificate issued by the Government Health Department of Assam cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining a child's age because a school transfer certificate specifying the petitioner's birth date was available.

Despite the fact that the petitioner was detained since his arrest on June 3, 2022, I believe that at this point it would not be appropriate to release him on bail given the seriousness of the offence, the surrounding circumstances, and the potential for the accused to intimidate the witnesses, including the victim.

Case Title: Sofikul Islam v. State of Kerala

Citation: BAIL APPL. NO. 7321 OF 2022