The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a decision recorded by the Juvenile Court against a juvenile in conflict with law should not be considered a bar to issuing a passport. The Court also emphasized that the "right to be forgotten" for children whose cases are before the Juvenile Justice system is an absolute right, aimed at ensuring their rehabilitation, reintegration, and access to the future.
The Division Bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Indrajeet Shukla issued the order while granting a writ petition filed by Mohd. Yunus Ansari. His passport application had been refused by the Regional Passport Officer, Lucknow, based on an adverse police report citing an old criminal case in which he was convicted as a juvenile. The Court noted that the Passport Authorities had grossly misappreciated the legal consequences of a juvenile conviction and misinterpreted the safeguards provided by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.
Background of the Case
The petitioner applied for a passport on January 29, 2020. When no decision was made, he approached the High Court, which directed the authorities to take an appropriate decision. Subsequently, during contempt proceedings initiated by the petitioner over non-compliance, the Passport Authority passed an order on March 19, 2021, refusing the passport. The rejection order stated that the petitioner had failed to furnish information regarding the final outcome of criminal cases and that an adverse police verification report made issuance impermissible. The material relied upon related to Case Crime No. 219 of 2010 under Sections 363, 366, and 376 IPC.
Before the High Court, the petitioner pointed out that at the time of the offense, he was only 16 years and 10 months old and was treated as a juvenile in conflict with law. He was tried by the Juvenile Justice Board, Gorakhpur, and convicted on August 13, 2013. However, instead of custodial sentence, the Board released him on probation for six months, subject to good conduct. The petitioner also placed on record a Character Certificate from the District Probation Officer, Gorakhpur, dated March 20, 2014, certifying successful completion of probation with good conduct.
It was argued that no criminal case was pending against him, and the Passport Authority proceeded on an entirely incorrect factual basis. It was also submitted that a conviction recorded by the Juvenile Justice Board could not be treated as a stigma or disqualification for future opportunities.
Stand of the Union of India
Counsel for the Union of India defended the rejection, arguing that the petitioner was a previous convict, justifying the refusal. Reliance was placed on Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, which permits refusal where criminal proceedings are pending before a criminal court.
Court Finds Passport Authority Proceeded on Incorrect Facts
The High Court first examined the basis of the impugned order and found that the Passport Authority had incorrectly recorded that criminal proceedings were pending against the petitioner. The Bench noted no pending criminal case existed. The Court observed that Section 6(2)(f) applies only when proceedings are pending, which was not the case. The Court remarked: "Since no criminal proceedings are pending against the petitioner, thus, recording of pendency of criminal case in the order impugned exhibits complete non-serious attitude of respondent-authorities and is a monument of non-application of mind."
The Court also noted the petitioner's submission that the refusal appeared to result from "sheer annoyance" arising from contempt proceedings against the authorities for delay.
The Court then undertook an extensive analysis of Section 19 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000. The Bench pointed out that Section 19 starts with a non-obstante clause and expressly states that a juvenile dealt with under the Act shall not be disqualified on the basis of his conviction. The Court said the legislative intent is clear: a juvenile's conviction should not become a lifelong disability. The Court observed: "It means that even if a juvenile is convicted for an offence committed by him, his conviction would not be treated as a disqualification."
The Bench agreed that disqualification from a conviction should not limit a child's rights. The juvenile justice framework ensures that a child who commits an offense is rehabilitated and brought back into mainstream society, not permanently burdened by stigma. Juvenile convictions are not intended to affect future opportunities such as employment, travel, education, or social reintegration.
'Fresh Start' and 'Right to Be Forgotten'
The Court extensively discussed the principles of "fresh start" and "right to be forgotten." It noted that Section 3(xiv) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 says all records of a juvenile under the system must be expunged except in special cases. The Bench observed that both the 2000 and 2015 Acts aim to prevent juvenile mistakes from becoming lifelong obstacles. The Court observed: "The thrust of the legislation i.e. Act, 2000 as well as the Act, 2015 is that even if a juvenile is convicted, the same should be obliterated, so that there is no stigma with regard to any crime committed by such person as a juvenile. This is with the clear object to re-integrate such juvenile into the society as a normal person without any stigma."
The Court further emphasized that the law goes beyond removing disqualifications; it actively seeks removal and destruction of records relating to juvenile delinquency so that a child may genuinely receive a fresh start. The Bench cautioned that retaining such records could seriously affect future employment, social acceptance, rehabilitation, and economic stability. It referred to the Supreme Court's observations in Jorawer Singh Mundy v. Union of India, noting that continued accessibility of juvenile records could cause humiliation, embarrassment, and long-term prejudice.
In a significant observation, the Court held: "This Court does not wish to enter into the realm of broader 'right to be forgotten', but, at present, is specifically considering the 'right to be forgotten' for a juvenile in the perspective of Section 24 of the Act of 2015 to be an absolute right for safeguarding future prospects of such juvenile."
Right to Passport and Right to Travel Abroad
The High Court reiterated that the right to travel abroad is an integral facet of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Relying on Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, the Court observed that a citizen's right to travel abroad cannot be curtailed except through fair, just, and reasonable procedure established by law. The Bench noted that refusal of a passport has serious civil implications and must be applied with care and legally sustainable reasons. The Court observed that liberty is a constitutional obligation, and any restriction on the right to hold a passport or travel abroad must satisfy fairness, reasonableness, and proportionality under Article 21.
Court's Decision
Holding that the petitioner was entitled to protection under Section 19 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, the Allahabad High Court ruled that the conviction recorded by the Juvenile Justice Board could not be treated as a legal impediment for passport issuance. The Court further held that the respondents were duty-bound to give full effect to the principles of "fresh start" and "right to be forgotten" so that past juvenile delinquency does not impair future rehabilitation, reintegration, and opportunities. The Bench held that the impugned order reflected arbitrariness and complete non-application of mind, particularly because it incorrectly recorded pending criminal proceedings. Accordingly, the Court quashed the order dated March 19, 2021, and directed the Regional Passport Officer to process the petitioner's passport application afresh, ignoring the juvenile conviction, and issue the passport if no other legal impediment exists.
WRIT – C No. -21876 of 2021
Mohd Yunus Ansari vs. Union of India and Another
Date of Decision: 07.05.2026
Counsel for Petitioners(s): Shailendra Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s): A.S.G.I. Arun Kumar Pa
