Whether the POCSO Act applies at all depends on age, and the Allahabad High Court has flagged false victim age certificates in POCSO cases, even as the Uttar Pradesh government put before it draft guidelines for recording and verifying a student’s date of birth from school records.
Allahabad: Granting bail to the accused in a POCSO case, the Allahabad High Court has pointed to what it called a pattern of false victim age certificates, in which young men of about 19 to 20 years were allegedly implicated on the strength of doctored school documents, and has directed all State departments to cooperate with the Additional Chief Secretary (Basic Education) so that final guidelines on recording a child’s age at school admission can be issued [Banti alias Banshi v. State of U.P. and 3 Others].
Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal noted that Partha Sarthi Sensharma, Additional Chief Secretary, Basic Education, Uttar Pradesh, was present and had placed the State’s proposed guidelines before the Court. The allegations against the accused are untested, the Court has expressed no view on the merits, and the accused is presumed innocent.
Every department to cooperate
Satisfied with the effort, the Court directed all other departments to cooperate with the Additional Chief Secretary, Basic Education, and asked its Registrar (Compliance) to send a copy of the order to the Chief Secretary, Uttar Pradesh, for circulation to the departments concerned. The guidelines are still in draft form, and the Court has not yet approved a final text.
The State’s draft, step by step
The Additional Chief Secretary told the Court that he had held meetings on September 17 and October 21, 2026. Where a birth certificate is not available, Rule 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011 requires a parent to submit one of four documents: a hospital certificate or ANM register entry, an Anganwadi Centre record, the Gram Panchayat’s birth and death register, or, if none exists, a parent’s affidavit.
Under the draft, the school’s scholar register would note which document was produced, the class teacher would sign against the entry, and the head teacher would issue an age certificate in a prescribed format when a competent authority asks for one. The final guidelines are to follow consultation with other departments, including Law.
The August 12 order that started it
The same Judge first took up the issue on August 12, 2026, in Shivam Yadav alias Chhotu v. State of U.P. There, a school leaving certificate placing the victim below 18 turned out to rest on a transfer certificate that the named school’s headmaster told the Investigating Officer it had never issued. The Court found that a forged transfer certificate had been prepared, held that the school certificate could not be considered, and called the pattern a clear misuse of the POCSO Act.
It noted that Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, which courts follow to fix age, puts school records first, then municipal or panchayat birth certificates, and medical tests last, and that no prescribed format or procedure exists for schools to issue date-of-birth certificates. It asked the Principal Secretary, Basic Education, to frame guidelines, preferably within two months.
In the Court’s words
Recording that it had already directed the Principal Secretary, Basic Education, to deal with the problem, the Court referred to its earlier observation that
on the basis of false age certificate of victim, the accused boys of about 19 to 20 years old had been falsely implicated.
These observations were made in the cases before the Court. They are not findings about any particular family or complaint.
The bail plea before the Court
The applicant sought bail in a case registered in Mainpuri district under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act. His counsel submitted that a Class V certificate had been handed to the police while the complainant’s Class VIII school records were kept back, and that the complainant had passed Class VIII. The State’s counsel could not dispute those facts. The Court noted that the complainant’s statements under Sections 180 and 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) gave an age different from the one on the certificate given to the police, and that no medical examination had been conducted because it was refused.
The applicant has no criminal history, had been in custody since August 20, 2026, and the chargesheet has been filed. Citing overcrowding in jails and the pendency of cases, the Court allowed bail without expressing any opinion on the merits, on a personal bond and two sureties, with conditions that he not threaten or induce witnesses or tamper with evidence and that he cooperate with the trial.
Why a verifiable age record matters
In many cases age is the first contested fact, because it decides whether the POCSO Act applies at all. The Juvenile Justice Act puts school records at the top of the hierarchy of proof, so a school entry carries heavy weight, and one that cannot be traced to a verifiable source can distort the whole case. A standard format, a fixed list of documents and a teacher’s signature against the entry would give courts a record whose origin can be checked.
The same safeguards also protect genuine child victims, whose protection under the Act depends on their age being established reliably.
Case Title: Banti alias Banshi v. State of U.P. and 3 Others [Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 37100 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, Allahabad High Court
Date of Order: October 24, 2026
Appearances: Partha Sarthi Sensharma, Additional Chief Secretary, Basic Education, Uttar Pradesh, was present before the Court. Counsel for the parties are not named in the order.
If a child needs help: CHILDLINE 1098 (24×7, free).