Juvenile conviction can’t bar passport; ‘right to be forgotten’ for children in conflict with law is absolute: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court ruled that a decision arrived at by the Juvenile Court and recorded against a juvenile in conflict with law should not be deemed as to be a bar towards issuing a passport to him.

The Court also highlighted that the “right to be forgotten” of children whose cases are before the Juvenile Justice is an absolute right, whose purpose is to ensure that children are rehabilitated, re-integrated and have access to the future.The Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Indrajeet Shukla of the Division Bench gave the order while granting a writ petition filed by Mohd. Yunus Ansari's passport application had been refused by the Regional Passport Officer, Lucknow on the ground of an adverse police report citing an old criminal case in which he was convicted as a juvenile.The Court pointed out that the Passport Authorities had grossly misappreciated the legal consequences of a juvenile conviction and had misinterpreted the safeguards provided by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.Background of the CaseThe petitioner applied for a passport on 29.01.2020. When no decision was taken on his application, he approached the High Court, which directed the authorities to take an appropriate decision.

Subsequently, during the pendency of contempt proceedings initiated by the petitioner over non-compliance of the earlier order, the Passport Authority passed an order dated 19.03.2021 refusing issuance of a 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 of a passport impermissible.

The material relied upon by the authorities related to Case Crime No. 219 of 2010 registered under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC.Before the High Court, the petitioner pointed out that on the date of the offence he was only 16 years and 10 months old and was therefore treated as a juvenile in conflict with law. He was tried by the Juvenile Justice Board, Gorakhpur and was convicted on 13.08.2013. However, instead of imposing any custodial sentence, the Juvenile Justice Board released him on probation for six months subject to maintaining good conduct and behaviour.The petitioner further placed on record a Character Certificate issued by the District Probation Officer, Gorakhpur on 20.03.2014, certifying that he had successfully completed the probation period and had maintained good conduct throughout.It was argued that there was no criminal case pending against him and therefore the Passport Authority had 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 IndiaCounsel appearing for the Union of India defended the rejection order by arguing that the petitioner was a previous convict and therefore the Passport Authority was justified in refusing the application.Reliance was also placed upon Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967, which permits refusal of a passport where criminal proceedings are pending before a criminal court.Court Finds Passport Authority Proceeded on Incorrect FactsThe 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 that no pending criminal case had been shown to exist.The Court further observed that Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act permits refusal of a passport only where proceedings in respect of an offence are pending before a criminal court. Since the proceedings against the petitioner had concluded years earlier, the provision had no application whatsoever.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 took note of the petitioner's submission that the refusal appeared to be a result of “sheer annoyance” arising from the contempt proceedings initiated against the authorities for their delay in deciding his application.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 the "non-obstante" clause, and expressly states that a juvenile who has been dealt with under the Act shall not be disqualified on the basis of his conviction.The Court says the intent of the legislature is clear. Where a juvenile does get convicted, that conviction cannot become a life-long 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 also agreed that disqualification imposed as a result of a conviction should not operate as a limitation on a child's rights of an opposing party to a law enforcement proceeding.The Court noted that the juvenile justice framework is specifically designed to ensure that a child who commits an offence is rehabilitated and brought back into the mainstream of society rather than being permanently burdened by the stigma of a conviction.According to the Court, juvenile convictions are not intended to operate as stigmatic labels affecting future opportunities such as employment, travel, education or social reintegration.‘Fresh Start’ and ‘Right to Be Forgotten’The ideas of “fresh start” and “right to be forgotten” are the subject of a large portion of the judgment.The Court said it had taken into account the principle of fresh start in the Juvenile Justice Act 2015 in Section 3(xiv) which says that all the records of a juvenile under the juvenile justice system must be expunged except in special cases.The Bench observed that the goal of both the 2000 Act and the 2015 Act is to avoid having juvenile mistakes become life-long 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 merely 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 observed that the juvenile justice law is intended to ensure that criminal antecedents of children are erased and not carried forward into adulthood.The Court cautioned that retaining such records could seriously affect future employment prospects, social acceptance, rehabilitation and economic stability.The Bench also 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 to a person who was a child at the time of the incident.In one of the most significant observations of the judgment, 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 AbroadThe High Court also reiterated that the right to travel abroad is an integral facet of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.Relying upon the Constitution Bench decision in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and the earlier judgment in Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D. Ramarathnam, the Court observed that a citizen's right to travel abroad cannot be curtailed except through a fair, just and reasonable procedure established by law.The Bench noted that refusal of a passport has serious civil implications and therefore, has to be applied with care of mind and reasons that are legally sustainable.The Court observed that liberty is a constitutional obligation of the State and any restriction on the right to hold a passport or travel abroad must satisfy the requirements of fairness, reasonableness and proportionality under Article 21.The Bench pointed out that the concept of travelling abroad and possession of a passport are two separate issues from the recent Supreme Court judgements.

Courts have the authority to impose suitable conditions on foreign travel even if a case is pending before them. Therefore, it is not justified to deny someone a passport for an unconvincing or insufficient reason. Court’s DecisionHolding that the petitioner was entitled to the protection of 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 issuance of a passport.

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 the existence of pending criminal proceedings.

Accordingly, the Court quashed the order dated 19 March 2021 and directed the Regional Passport Officer to process the petitioner's passport application afresh, ignoring the juvenile conviction recorded by the Juvenile Justice Board and issuing the passport if no other legal impediment exists.WRIT – C No. -21876 of 2021Mohd Yunus Ansari vs. Union of India and AnotherDate of Decision: 07.05.2026Counsel for Petitioners(s): Shailendra Singh Counsel for Respondent(s): A.S.G.I. Arun Kumar Pa(The author of this article, Vatsal Chandra is a Delhi-based Advocate practicing before the courts of Delhi NCR.)