Illegal to Conduct Ossification Test on a Minor When Proper Age Documents Are Available: Allahabad High Court

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) held ossification tests cannot determine juvenile age when valid documents exist. It set aside orders of the Juvenile Justice Board and POCSO court, granting conditional bail to a minor with probation reporting conditions.

LUCKNOW: The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court has ruled that it is unlawful to carry out a medical examination (ossification test) to determine a juvenile’s age when documents from a school, board, municipal corporation, municipality, or panchayat are available.

The court set aside orders of the Juvenile Justice Board and the special POCSO court and granted conditional bail to a minor accused of molesting and threatening a 15-year-old girl. The minor was directed to report to the district probation officer with his guardian on the 10th of every month for one year and to refrain from any criminal activity.

Justice Manish Kumar issued the order recently on a revision petition filed by the accused. The matter arose from Pratapgarh district, where an FIR was registered on March 11, 2025 under provisions of the POCSO Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

The accused’s date of birth appears as January 1, 2010 on his high school certificate and as May 13, 2009 in his primary school records. Despite these records, the Juvenile Justice Board directed an age-determination test, and the special judge (POCSO Act, Pratapgarh) upheld that direction. Both orders were challenged in the high court by way of a revision petition.

The high court noted that, under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, school or board certificates must be given primary consideration when determining age. Birth certificates issued by municipal corporations, municipalities, or panchayats are to be considered next.

A medical examination may be ordered only if these documents are not available. The court observed that the documents on record indicated the accused was a minor.

Similar Posts