Standardizing Age Determination: Judicial Interpretation of the Juvenile Justice Act

The Supreme Court has recently underscored the importance of procedural rigor in criminal jurisprudence by ruling that a baptismal certificate cannot be accepted as a valid document to establish the age of a victim under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. This judicial intervention serves as a critical reminder of the hierarchy of evidence mandated by Section 94 of the Act, which outlines a specific sequence of documents—such as birth certificates from school or municipal authorities—to be used for age determination. In cases involving the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, the determination of a victim's age is a foundational element that dictates the severity of charges and the subsequent legal trajectory of the trial. The Court observed that allowing non-statutory documents, such as religious certificates, to override the legislative framework undermines the integrity of the judicial process. By insisting on documents prescribed under Section 94, the judiciary aims to eliminate ambiguity and prevent the manipulation of evidence that could lead to the miscarriage of justice.