The Allahabad High Court recently ruled that a mere school transfer certificate or an entry in a school’s admission register does not satisfy the requirement of a “date of birth certificate from the school” under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act), 2015. The Court allowed a habeas corpus petition challenging a detention order issued by a Child Welfare Committee, Kannauj (CWC), which had sent a young woman to a children’s home on the basis of her school transfer certificate showing her date of birth as May 11, 2008. According to the CWC, this made her a “child.”
The facts of the case show that the woman, along with her husband, had solemnised their marriage under Hindu rites in 2023. Her mother lodged a police complaint alleging that the woman was a minor based on the date of birth recorded in the school transfer certificate. The woman, however, consistently asserted she was 19 years old and produced her Aadhaar card and a medical examination report indicating she was 18 or above. Despite that, the CWC ordered her institutionalisation at a government children's home, relying solely on the school TC’s DOB entry.
When the couple approached the High Court seeking habeas corpus relief, the State objected that the petition was not maintainable because the CWC functions as a judicial authority under Section 27(9) of the JJ Act — and ordinarily, writs are not permitted against judicial orders. The Court, however, rejected this contention. The Court observed that while generally habeas corpus is not issued against judicial custody, there is a vital exception when the detention order is shown to be “without jurisdiction,” “absolutely illegal,” or passed in a “mechanical manner” without application of mind — in which case the writ remains maintainable.
On merits, the Court scrutinised the foundation of the CWC’s detention order. Section 94 of the JJ Act requires a certified date-of-birth certificate from the school or matriculation certificate for determination of child status. The Court pointed out that earlier decisions of the Supreme Court of India had held that a school transfer certificate or admission-register extract cannot be relied upon for age determination in sensitive cases. The High Court noted that the CWC had mechanically accepted the transfer certificate without verifying the origin of entries, or examining the school principal or other persons to assess the authenticity of the record — especially as the school was a private institution, and the records were not public documents. There was no evidence as to how or when the entries were made, or whether they reflected actual date of birth.
Given that no credible authenticated age proof was before the CWC, and other available documents (Aadhaar and medical report) supported the woman’s claim of being an adult, the detention order was held to be illegal and without jurisdiction. The High Court declared that she was not a “child” under the Act and ordered her immediate release from the children’s home, allowing her to live with her husband or wherever she chose.
By doing so, the Court reiterated that age-determination under the JJ Act must be based on valid, recognised documents, and that reliance on a school transfer certificate alone — without verifying authenticity — is impermissible. Detention orders based on such mechanical acceptance may be challenged via habeas corpus, even if issued by a body exercising quasi-judicial functions.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.