Ossification Test Only if Certificates Under Section 94(2) of JJ Act Are Absent: SC

The Supreme Court vide judgment dated May 20, 2025, clarified the statutory hierarchy of evidence in determining the age of a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Dismissing appeals, the Court affirmed that valid school and municipal birth records must take precedence over ossification test, which can only be resorted to in their absence.

A Division Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed, “The statute is very clear that only in the absence of the certificates under clause (i) and clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of Section 94 can the JJB order for an ossification test or any other medical test to determine the age of the juvenile.” The Court found the JJB’s approach “totally fallacious” and emphasized that “it was not open to the JJB to go behind the available school certificate or the birth certificate of the Corporation and record evidence to examine the correctness or otherwise of such certificate.” The attempt to reopen a settled date of birth, already accepted by the same JJB in an earlier proceeding was also deemed impermissible, as the Juvenile Justice Act does not confer the JJB with powers of review.

Brief Background

The case arose out of a 2021 murder in Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, where the accused, facing trial for offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC and the Arms Act, claimed juvenility.

The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) initially rejected this claim, relying on a medical board’s assessment that assessed the accused’s age at approximately 21 years. This was done despite the presence of a school certificate and a municipal birth certificate both stating the accused’s date of birth as 8 September, 2003, making him 17 years and 3 months old at the time of the offence. The Additional District and Sessions Judge reversed the JJB’s decision, and the High Court upheld the said reversal. The complainant then approached the Supreme Court.

Observations by the Court

The Top Court underscored the mandatory structure of Section 94(2), which requires authorities to rely first on documentary evidence, and only “in the absence” of such records may they turn to medical opinion. In doing so, it also distinguished the present facts from those in Union Territory of J&K v. Shubam Sangra, where the lack of credible documents had left the Court with no choice but to rely on medical findings.

On the question of bail, which had been granted by the High Court and remained in effect for over three years, the Court declined to interfere, noting the absence of any record showing misuse of liberty. It stated that if the liberty is ever misused, “it is always open to the appellant as well as to the State to seek cancellation of bail.”

Ultimately, both appeals were dismissed, reinforcing a strict statutory reading of age determination under juvenile law and protecting the integrity of documentary evidence in such assessments.

Case Title: Rajni v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.