Introduction:
The Allahabad High Court has taken note of the Uttar Pradesh government’s proposal to introduce guidelines for recording the age of children at the time of school admission, following concerns about alleged inaccuracies in school age certificates being used in criminal proceedings under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The proposed guidelines seek to establish a clearer procedure for verifying a child’s age when a birth certificate is unavailable, maintaining records of the documents submitted at admission and issuing age certificates when required by competent authorities.
Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal considered the matter in proceedings arising from a bail application involving allegations under the POCSO Act. During the hearing, the Court was informed that the State’s Basic Education Department had prepared draft guidelines after holding meetings in September and October 2026. Partha Sarthi Sensharma, Additional Chief Secretary (ACS), Basic Education, Uttar Pradesh, appeared before the Court and explained that consultations with other departments, including the Law Department, were still in progress.
The proposed guidelines assume particular significance because a person’s age can be a decisive factor in determining whether the POCSO Act applies to the alleged conduct. The legislation provides special protection to children against sexual offences, and the statutory definition of a child covers any person below 18 years of age. Consequently, reliable proof of age may become central to the determination of criminal liability in cases where the victim’s minority is disputed.
The issue is especially important when the available records contain conflicting dates of birth or when the documents relied upon to establish a victim’s age have not been adequately verified. An inaccurate age certificate can create serious legal consequences for both the person making the allegation and the accused. It can affect the application of the relevant criminal law, the assessment of the evidence and the course of judicial proceedings.
In August 2026, the Allahabad High Court had expressed concern over what it described as the alleged misuse of the POCSO Act through the submission of forged school certificates showing victims as minors. The Court observed that, in certain cases, boys aged approximately 19 to 20 years had allegedly been implicated on the basis of false age certificates. These observations reflected the Court’s concern about the need for reliable age-determination procedures, without diminishing the importance of protecting children from sexual offences.
A similar issue arose before Justice Deshwal’s Bench in another bail matter. In its order dated October 24, 2026, the Court referred to cases in which the accused had allegedly been implicated on the basis of false age certificates. During the proceedings, the State informed the Court that it had prepared a proposal specifying alternative documents that could be accepted as proof of age when a birth certificate was unavailable at the time of school admission.
The proposed framework draws upon Rule 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011. It identifies four categories of documents that may be relied upon, requires schools to record the document submitted by the parent or guardian in the scholar register and prescribes a format for age certificates issued by school authorities.
The High Court expressed satisfaction with the explanation furnished by the Additional Chief Secretary and appreciated the efforts undertaken to prepare the guidelines in consultation with the relevant departments. It directed the concerned departments to cooperate so that the final guidelines could be issued without unnecessary delay.
While the proposed guidelines are intended to improve the reliability of school age records, the case also highlights a broader legal principle: criminal proceedings involving allegations under protective legislation must be supported by a careful and credible assessment of the evidence, including reliable proof of age wherever it is legally relevant.
Arguments of the Parties:
The proceedings involved two related issues: the State government’s efforts to establish a standard procedure for recording children’s ages in school records and the accused’s request for bail in a case where the victim’s age was disputed. The Court considered the government’s explanation concerning the proposed guidelines while independently examining the circumstances relevant to the bail application.
The available case summary does not reproduce the complete submissions made by the prosecution or the defence. Accordingly, the positions of the parties must be understood from the submissions specifically recorded in the supplied material and the circumstances considered by the Court.
On behalf of the accused, counsel raised concerns about the reliability of the documents allegedly used to establish the victim’s age. According to the defence submission recorded in the case summary, a Class V certificate provided to the police showed the victim as being below 14 years of age, while records relating to her subsequent education, including Class VIII, were allegedly concealed.
The defence contention was that the victim’s educational records and the discrepancy between the documents required careful examination before her age could be conclusively determined. The allegation regarding the concealment of Class VIII records was a submission advanced by the applicant’s counsel and was not, merely by being recorded, a final judicial finding that the records had deliberately been suppressed.
The defence also relied on the differences between the victim’s statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). Section 180 concerns the examination of witnesses by police during an investigation, whereas Section 183 deals with the recording of confessions and statements by a Magistrate. Differences between statements recorded at different stages may become relevant when the Court assesses the consistency of the prosecution material, although their significance depends on the nature and context of the discrepancies.
The FIR reportedly described the victim as approximately 16 years old. However, the statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS indicated that she had passed Class VIII and was approximately 14 years old. The defence pointed to these differing age descriptions as circumstances requiring scrutiny of the records used to determine the victim’s actual age.
The defence also drew attention to the fact that the victim’s medical examination had not been conducted because her parent had refused it. This circumstance formed part of the overall factual background considered by the Court. However, the absence of a medical examination does not automatically establish that an allegation is false, nor does it independently determine whether a person is legally a child. Its significance must be assessed in the context of the allegations, the available evidence and the reasons for the examination not taking place.
From the accused’s perspective, the combination of the discrepancies in the victim’s statements, the disputed age documents, the circumstances surrounding the medical examination and the other evidence was relevant to the request for bail. The defence sought relief on the basis of the overall circumstances rather than on any single factor in isolation.
The State’s position concerning the proposed guidelines was presented by Partha Sarthi Sensharma, Additional Chief Secretary, Basic Education. He informed the Court that the department had conducted meetings in September and October 2026 and had subsequently prepared draft guidelines to regulate the recording of children’s ages at the time of school admission.
The government proposal addressed the situation in which a birth certificate issued under the applicable birth-registration framework was unavailable. In such circumstances, the proposed guidelines would allow schools to rely on one of four specified categories of documents: a hospital certificate or an Auxiliary Nurse and Midwife (ANM) register entry, an Anganwadi Centre record, a birth and death register maintained by the Gram Panchayat, or an affidavit declaring the child’s age by a parent or guardian.
The State’s proposal also sought to improve accountability by requiring the school scholar register to specify which document had been submitted by the parent or guardian. The relevant class teacher would sign the corresponding entry, whether the student was admitted to Class I or another class.
In addition, the proposal contemplated a prescribed format for age certificates issued by schools. When a competent authority sought an age certificate, the head teacher or headmistress would prepare it using the student’s particulars and date of birth as recorded in the school register.
The State further informed the Court that the draft had not yet completed the consultation process. Discussions with other departments, including the Law Department, were continuing, and the final guidelines would be issued after the necessary consultations had concluded.
The government’s explanation indicated that it was working towards a more consistent procedure for recording age information and issuing school certificates. By specifying the documents that could be accepted and requiring the basis of the age entry to be documented, the proposed framework sought to make school records more transparent and easier to verify when questions arose in legal proceedings.
The Court considered the government’s response satisfactory and appreciated the efforts made by the Additional Chief Secretary. It also directed the other departments concerned to cooperate in finalising the guidelines.
The State’s submissions on administrative reform were distinct from the prosecution’s position on the merits of the criminal case. While the government’s proposal addressed the general procedure for recording age in school records, the bail application required the Court to assess the particular facts and evidence relating to the accused.
Court’s Judgment:
Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal considered the State government’s proposed guidelines against the background of the Court’s earlier concerns regarding the reliability of age certificates in cases under the POCSO Act. The Court recognised the importance of establishing a consistent procedure for recording a child’s age at the time of school admission, particularly where the absence of a birth certificate makes it necessary to rely on alternative documents.
The Court had previously expressed concern in August 2026 over cases in which school certificates were allegedly being used to falsely establish that victims were below 18 years of age. According to the observations recorded in the earlier proceedings, some boys aged approximately 19 to 20 years had allegedly been implicated in POCSO cases on the basis of false age certificates.
The Court reiterated its concern in the October 24, 2026 order, observing that it had encountered several cases in which accused persons were allegedly implicated on the basis of false certificates relating to the victim’s age.
These observations do not establish that the POCSO Act is generally misused or that allegations in such cases are ordinarily false. Rather, they highlight the Court’s concern that age-related evidence must be properly verified when the applicability of the statute depends on whether the person concerned was below 18 years of age at the relevant time.
The POCSO Act is a protective criminal statute intended to safeguard children from sexual offences. Its application requires courts to examine the legally relevant facts, including the age of the person concerned. Where the age is disputed, the reliability of the documents relied upon to establish it may assume considerable importance.
A school certificate should therefore not be treated as beyond scrutiny merely because it has been issued by an educational institution. Its evidentiary value must be assessed in accordance with the applicable law and the circumstances in which it was prepared. Where conflicting records exist, the Court may need to consider their origin, reliability and relationship to other evidence.
The State’s proposal seeks to address one aspect of this problem by standardising the documents that schools may accept when a birth certificate is unavailable at the time of admission.
According to the proposal placed before the Court, the four categories of alternative documents are a hospital certificate or ANM register record, an Anganwadi Centre record, the birth and death register maintained by the Gram Panchayat, and an affidavit declaring the child’s age by a parent or guardian.
These categories are intended to provide schools with an identifiable basis for recording a student’s age rather than leaving the matter entirely to informal declarations or undocumented assumptions. The proposed procedure would also make it possible to identify the specific source relied upon when the school originally entered the date of birth.
The proposal refers to Rule 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011. By grounding the proposed procedure in the existing regulatory framework, the State seeks to establish a more uniform approach to age documentation at the point of school admission.
An important feature of the draft is the requirement that the scholar register identify the document submitted by the parent or guardian. The corresponding entry would be signed by the class teacher, whether the child was admitted to Class I or a higher class.
This requirement could assist in determining how a date of birth came to be recorded and which document supported it. If a dispute later arises in a criminal proceeding, the register may provide information about the original admission entry and the documentary basis on which the school relied.
The proposal also addresses the subsequent issuance of age certificates. Under the proposed procedure, when a competent authority requests such a certificate, the head teacher or headmistress would issue it in a prescribed format using the student’s particulars and date of birth as recorded in the school register.
This would help distinguish between the original school record and a certificate subsequently prepared from that record. It would also create a more consistent format for the information supplied by schools to police officers, courts and other competent authorities.
However, the reliability of the resulting certificate would continue to depend on the accuracy of the underlying school entry and the credibility of the document originally submitted. Recording the source of an age entry improves traceability, but it does not automatically guarantee that every document is authentic or that every recorded date of birth is correct.
The proposed guidelines must therefore be understood as an administrative measure intended to improve consistency and accountability, rather than as a substitute for judicial scrutiny of disputed evidence. Their final legal and administrative effect will depend on the guidelines ultimately issued by the State and the applicable evidentiary framework.
The Additional Chief Secretary informed the Court that the Basic Education Department had conducted meetings in September and October 2026 before preparing the proposal. He further explained that consultation with other departments, including the Law Department, was continuing.
The Court expressed satisfaction with the explanation and appreciated the officer’s efforts to prepare the guidelines in consultation with the relevant departments.
The Court observed: “This court is satisfied with the explanation submitted by the ACS, Basic Education, U.P., Lucknow and appreciates his effort to prepare guidelines in consultation with other departments”.
Rather than treating the preparation of the draft as the completion of the process, the Court directed the concerned departments to cooperate with the Additional Chief Secretary so that the final guidelines could be issued. The direction emphasised the need for coordination between the departments whose inputs were necessary to finalise the procedure for entering ages in school records and issuing age certificates.
The Registrar (Compliance) was also directed to send a copy of the order to the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh. The Chief Secretary was required to circulate it to the Principal Secretaries or Additional Chief Secretaries of the departments whose consultation was necessary.
This direction placed the matter before the senior administrative authorities and sought to facilitate interdepartmental cooperation. It also reflected the Court’s interest in ensuring that the proposed safeguards progressed beyond the preliminary drafting stage.
The Court’s consideration of the bail application involved a separate assessment of the evidence and circumstances in the individual case.
The FIR described the victim as approximately 16 years old, whereas her statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS indicated that she had passed Class VIII and was around 14 years old. The applicant’s counsel alleged that a Class V certificate showing the victim as below 14 had been provided to the police, while her Class VIII records had been concealed.
These assertions formed part of the defence submissions and had to be considered alongside the other material before the Court. The Court also noted that the victim’s medical examination had not taken place because her parent had refused it.
The Court assessed these circumstances together with the nature of the alleged offence, the evidence available and the alleged complicity of the accused. It ultimately concluded that the applicant was entitled to bail.
The grant of bail does not amount to a finding that the allegations were false, nor does it establish that the victim’s age had been conclusively determined in favour of the accused. Bail is an interim form of relief that permits an accused person to remain at liberty subject to the applicable conditions while the criminal proceedings continue.
Likewise, the Court’s concern about alleged false age certificates should not be interpreted as weakening the statutory protection available to children. The need to prevent the misuse of legal processes and the need to protect children are compatible objectives. Both require a reliable investigation, accurate records and a fair assessment of the evidence.
The order therefore has significance on two levels. At the administrative level, it encourages the State to establish a documented procedure for recording children’s ages and issuing school certificates. At the judicial level, it underscores the importance of scrutinising disputed age evidence in criminal proceedings where minority is relevant to the application of the law.
The proposed guidelines may help improve the traceability of school age records by identifying the documents accepted at admission, recording the basis of the entry and standardising the format of certificates issued later. Nevertheless, their effectiveness will depend on proper implementation, careful maintenance of school registers and verification of documents wherever necessary.
Ultimately, the Allahabad High Court appreciated the Uttar Pradesh government’s efforts to prepare guidelines and directed the relevant departments to cooperate in finalising them. The Court also granted bail to the applicant after considering the inconsistencies in the victim’s statements, the circumstances surrounding the abence of a medical examination, the nature of the allegation