SUBIN JOY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayers in the writ petition are as follows:-

(2.) Petitioner was arrayed as fifth respondent in C.C.No.46 of 2011 before the Juvenile Court, Thalassery for the offences alleged to have been committed under Ss. 448 and 427 of the IPC while he was a minor. The afore matter was settled and compounded and he was acquitted. The petitioner challenges unlawful retention of the juvenile records despite his acquittal. The petitioner submits that a juvenile, who has been in conflict with the law, shall not be subjected to any disqualification arising from a past conviction. The petitioner relies on Sec. 3(xiv) and 24 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Since the petitioner repeatedly participated in recruitment examinations for positions in public sector banks, he is apprehensive regarding the continued existence of his juvenile records in both judicial and police archives, particularly as such records could potentially surface during character verification conducted by the concerned police department. In order to ascertain the status of such records, the petitioner, through his lawyer, submitted an application seeking certified copies of the records pertaining to C.C.No.46/2011 on the files of the Juvenile Court, Thalassery. Pursuant to the application, details were readily furnished, thus confirming that the juvenile records remained in tact and accessible within the judicial system. Thereafter the petitioner filed Ext.P1 representation dtd. 17/3/2025 before the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Thalasserry seeking erasure of all records pertaining to C.C.No.46/2011 from official archives in accordance with statutory mandates. By order dtd. 18/3/2025, the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Thalassery directed the registry to delete the records and to ensure that the same are not made available for any official or public purpose. Though Ext.P2 representation was submitted, in the light of the order of the Magistrate, before the third respondent, the Station House Officer of Karikottakary Police Station- having jurisdiction over his current residence and the fourth respondent, the Station House Officer of Irutty Police Station, where the juvenile cases was originally registered, both officers informed him that the said juvenile cases continue to remain in their internal records and are accessible through the police department's digital database. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this court with the above writ petition.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.