The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that juveniles who have received benefits under Section 24 of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2015, possess an absolute right to have their records of delinquency erased, thereby affirming the 'right to be forgotten' concerning their past offenses.

In a ruling on a plea challenging the cancellation of public employment due to juvenile delinquency, the single-judge bench led by Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati not only affirmed the 'right to be forgotten' but also prohibited the state from soliciting information about individuals' past juvenile criminal records in instances where Section 24 is applicable.

The High Court case centered on a candidate applying for the position of police constable. Despite demonstrating merit throughout the selection process, the respondent authorities refused the appointment, alleging that the candidate had intentionally withheld information about his juvenile criminal history.

The petitioner candidate's counsel argued that the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) explicitly noted in the conviction order its decision to remove the disqualification according to Section 24 of the 2015 Act.

According to Section 24(2), JJB can direct the police or the Children's Court that the relevant records of conviction shall be destroyed after the expiry of the period of appeal or after the lapse of a reasonable period.

Upon reviewing the records, Justice Bhati determined that the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) had indeed granted the petitioner the benefits outlined in Section 24 of the 2015 Act, with the intention of safeguarding his prospects, including employment opportunities.

The single-judge bench remarked that the petitioner candidate's response of 'No' in the application form regarding criminal antecedents was justified in light of the Juvenile Justice Board's observation in the final order. Additionally, the court examined Section 3(xiv) of the JJ Act, which embodies the principle of a fresh start, and Rule 14 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016, pertaining to the destruction of records. Ultimately, before overturning the impugned order that deemed the selected candidate ineligible for appointment, these provisions were thoroughly considered by the court.

It opined that if the antecedent records were available, it would create unnecessary embarrassment, socio-economic instability, and failure in rehabilitation.  Emphasizing the intention behind invoking Section 24, the court stated that complete erasure of the conviction record is the desired outcome. Additionally, the court affirmed that the petitioner had lawfully chosen not to disclose information regarding his juvenile conviction.

Accordingly, the respondent authorities were instructed to give an appointment to the petitioner within three months if he was found to be meritorious and eligible on all other counts.

Advocate Kailash Jangid, Advocate Mohan Singh Shekhawat appeared for the petitioner. AAG Manish Vyas and AGC Anil Bissa represented the respondent authorities.