Introduction 

The age of an individual is a critical factor in determining whether he or she is a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (“JJ Act”). Accurate age determination impacts not only the applicable procedural safeguards but also the degree of criminal responsibility and rehabilitation approach. Section 94 of the JJ Act provides a structured method for such determination, prioritizing documentary evidence and supplementing it with medical tests only when necessary. 

Legal Framework under the JJ Act, 2015 

Section 94 – Procedure for Age Determination 

Section 94 of the JJ Act lays down the following steps: 

• Visual Assessment (Section 94(1)) 
  • If the appearance of the person makes it obvious that he/she is a child, the Juvenile Justice Board or Child Welfare Committee shall record the estimated age and proceed without waiting for further confirmation. 
• Doubtful Cases (Section 94(2)) 

 If there is reasonable doubt: 

• • (i) Obtain the date of birth certificate from the school (or equivalent matriculation certificate), 
  • (ii) If unavailable, obtain the birth certificate from the corporation/municipality/panchayat, 
  • (iii) Only in absence of the above, conduct an ossification test or any latest medical age determination test. 
• Legal Status of Age Determination (Section 94(3)) 
  • The age so recorded shall be deemed the true age for all purposes under the Act. 

Judicial Precedents 

• Vinod Katara v. State of U.P., 2024  
  • The Supreme Court held that school records or birth certificates take precedence over medical opinion. 
  • The Court emphasized that ossification tests are not reliable beyond the age of 25 and must only be resorted to in absence of credible documentary evidence. 
• Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana (2013) 
  • The Supreme Court extended the procedure under Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Rules (similar to Section 94) to victims in POCSO and other child-related offences.
• Court on Its Own Motion v. State (Delhi High Court, 2024) 
  • In bone age estimation cases, the Court held that the upper age range in ossification reports should be considered as the victim’s age. 
  • It also added a margin of error of 2 years due to the inherent uncertainty in medical tests. 

Scientific Considerations 

• Bone Ossification Test: Relies on the fusion of bones and is an approximation of age, not a precise tool. 
• It becomes increasingly unreliable after the age of 25 years due to minimal physiological changes. 

Conclusion 

The Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, mandates a hierarchical and cautious approach to age determination, giving priority to documentary evidence and reserving medical testing for exceptional cases. Courts have repeatedly emphasized that ossification tests are only supplementary and should not override valid school or municipal records. Proper application of Section 94 ensures that juvenile rights are protected while maintaining procedural integrity in criminal and protective proceedings.