High Court Declares Ossification Test Illegal for Age Verification
The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court has issued a landmark ruling, stating that conducting a medical examination, specifically an ossification test, to determine a minor's age is illegal when official certificates from educational institutions or local authorities are available. This decision emphasizes the primacy of documented evidence over invasive medical procedures in legal proceedings involving juveniles.
Court Sets Aside Lower Court Orders and Grants Bail
In a significant move, the court set aside the orders of the Juvenile Justice Board and the Special POCSO Court, directing the release of the minor on bail. Justice Manish Kumar presided over the bench, which passed this order on a revision petition filed by the minor. The case originated from Pratapgarh district, where an FIR was lodged at Leelapur police station on March 11, 2025, charging the minor under sections of the POCSO Act and the BNS for allegedly molesting and threatening a 15-year-old girl.
Legal Arguments and Age Discrepancy
On behalf of the minor petitioner, it was argued that he was under 16 years of age at the time of the incident. The petitioner's high school certificate listed his date of birth as January 1, 2010, while his primary school records indicated May 13, 2009. Despite this documentation, the Juvenile Justice Board ordered a medical examination to determine his age, a decision that was later upheld by the appellate court of the Special Judge under the POCSO Act in Pratapgarh. Both orders were challenged through a revision petition before the High Court.
Court Cites Juvenile Justice Act Provisions
Allowing the revision petition, the court referenced Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, which mandates that school or board certificates should be prioritized for age determination. Birth certificates issued by municipal corporations, municipalities, or panchayats are to be considered next. Only in the absence of these documents can a medical examination be legally conducted. The court observed that the available documents clearly showed the accused was a minor, making the order for a medical examination contrary to the law.
Conditional Bail and Compliance Requirements
While granting conditional bail to the minor petitioner, the court imposed specific requirements to ensure compliance and rehabilitation. The minor must appear before the district probation officer along with his guardian on the 10th of every month for one year. Additionally, he is directed to refrain from any criminal activity during this period, underscoring the court's focus on both legal adherence and the minor's welfare.
