'School Transfer Certificate Can’t Prove Age Under JJ Act': Allahabad HC Quashes CWC Custody Order

The Allahabad High Court recently ordered immediate release of a young woman who had been kept in a government children’s home in Kanpur, holding that the Child Welfare Committee acted without jurisdiction when it treated her as a minor on the basis of unverified school records.

Court found that the committee’s order consigning her to institutional custody was mechanical, unsupported by evidence and contrary to the procedure prescribed under the Juvenile Justice Act.

The order came on a habeas corpus petition filed by the woman, Rohini, and the man she says she married of her own free will. The bench of Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Zafeer Ahmad examined the legality of the Child Welfare Committee’s direction that sent her to the Government Children Home in Swaroop Nagar.

After reviewing the material on record, court concluded that her detention was unlawful because the committee had no authority to take custody of a person who was not proven to be a child under the law.

An FIR was filed in January 2024 by the woman’s mother alleging that her daughter had been abducted. In that FIR, the mother claimed that the girl was born on 11 May 2008. The petitioners asserted that she was born on 1 January 2005. They relied on her Aadhaar card, a family register and a marksheet to demonstrate that she had already attained the age of majority.

A medical examination conducted after her recovery assessed her age as 18 years or above. In all her statements under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the girl consistently stated that she had married petitioner number two voluntarily and that no force had been used upon her. When produced before the high court on 21 August 2025, she repeated that she wished to live with her husband and did not want to return to her parental home.

Despite this material, the investigating officer submitted an application before the Special Judge hearing the POCSO case, stating that she had eloped several times and should therefore be kept under protective care. The Special Judge referred the matter to the Child Welfare Committee.

The committee first placed her in foster care on 20 February 2025 and later passed an order dated 30 July 2025 directing that she be kept in the government children’s home. This order relied solely on school admission entries and a transfer certificate which mentioned the date of birth as 11 May 2008.

Before the high court, the state argued that the writ petition was not maintainable because the detention followed an order passed by the Child Welfare Committee which functions as a bench under the Juvenile Justice Act. The state also argued that school records have priority over medical opinion while determining age.

The petitioners, however, contended that the committee’s order lacked jurisdiction because it failed to follow the mandatory procedure for age determination.

The high court held that a habeas corpus petition is maintainable when a detention order is without jurisdiction or passed in a wholly mechanical manner.

The bench stressed that Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act sets out a strict hierarchy for age determination. A valid date of birth certificate issued by the school or a matriculation certificate is required before any reliance can be placed on school records. Court noted that no such certificate was produced.

A transfer certificate or entries in the admission register of the school are not date of birth certificates, the high court emphasised.

Court also observed that the Child Welfare Committee did not summon the principal of the school, did not examine the source of the entry and did not verify whether the date of birth had been recorded on the oral statement of a parent. The father was not called. No evidence was taken on oath. There was no independent verification of the documents.

Court held that the committee failed to apply its mind and accepted the documents without scrutiny, which rendered the entire exercise illegal.

Since the only reliable material before the authorities was the medical report stating that she was 18 years or above, court concluded that Rohini was not a child under Section 2(12) of the Juvenile Justice Act. The Child Welfare Committee, therefore, had no jurisdiction to assume custody. Court declared her detention in the children’s home illegal.

Court issued a writ of habeas corpus directing her immediate release and stated that she is free to go wherever she wishes and stay with whomever she chooses.

Case Title: Smt Rohini and another vs. State of U.P. and 4 others

Order Date: December 5, 2025

Bench: Justices Zafeer Ahmad, and Salil Kumar Rai