HC pulls up JJ Board for ordering Ossification Test despite documentary Proof of Minority

In a significant procedural challenge concerning juvenile justice safeguards, the Allahabad High Court stepped in to examine whether authorities can bypass statutory mandates and order medical age tests even when documentary proof exists. The case arose from a criminal revision challenging orders of the Juvenile Justice Board and the appellate POCSO Court in Pratapgarh, where a minor accused in a serious offence case was subjected to an ossification test despite school records being available, raising critical questions about the correct application of age-determination law under the Juvenile Justice framework.

The controversy began when an FIR alleged offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the POCSO Act against a minor accused. Counsel for the revisionist argued that the applicant was indisputably a juvenile, with two school records placing his age below 16 years at the time of the incident. However, due to discrepancies between the High School certificate and a primary school register, the Juvenile Justice Board ordered an ossification test, a move later upheld by the appellate court. The defence contended that this directly violated Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which clearly prioritises documentary evidence over medical opinion. The State defended the decision but could not counter the statutory hierarchy laid down under the Act.

The Court came down firmly on the authorities, holding that the statutory scheme leaves no room for discretion once valid documents exist. In a sharp observation, the Court emphasized that medical tests are a last resort, noting, "Only in the absence of the above, the age shall be determined by an ossification test or any other medical age determination test." It further held that even with conflicting documents, both indicated that the accused was below 16 years, making the resort to medical examination wholly unwarranted and illegal.

Terming the orders of both the Board and the appellate court as being in “clear contravention” of the law, the Court set aside the impugned orders and allowed the revision, directing the release of the juvenile on bail with strict supervisory conditions.

Case Title: Pradeep Kori @ Pradeep Harijan (Minor) Thru. Father (Natural Guardian) Vs. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. and Anr

Case No.: Criminal Revision No. - 1470 of 2025

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manish Kumar

Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Nagendra Bahadur Singh, Adv. Drupad Upadhyay, Adv. Mukesh Kumar Tewari, Adv. Sushil Kumar Yadav

Advocate for the Respondent: G.A.

Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com