Mohd Yunus Ansari v. Union of India and Another, 2026

The petitioner, Mohd Yunus Ansari, applied for a passport on 29 January 2020.

The Regional Passport Officer, Lucknow, rejected his passport application on 19 March 2021.

The rejection order stated that the petitioner had failed to respond to a notice concerning the final outcome of criminal proceedings allegedly pending against him.

The authorities relied upon an adverse police report indicating that the petitioner had previously been involved in a rape and kidnapping case of the year 2010.

At the time of the alleged offence, the petitioner was only 16 years and 10 months old and was therefore a juvenile in conflict with law.

The petitioner was tried by the Juvenile Justice Board, Gorakhpur.

In August 2013, the Juvenile Justice Board found him guilty and placed him on probation for six months subject to good conduct.

The petitioner successfully completed the probation period without any adverse report.

On 20 March 2014, the District Probation Officer issued a Character Certificate certifying his satisfactory conduct.

The petitioner challenged the passport rejection before the High Court, contending that a juvenile conviction could not be treated as a stigma or disqualification under law.

He further argued that the rejection order was factually incorrect because no criminal case was pending against him when the passport application was rejected.

The Union of India defended the rejection by arguing that the petitioner was a previous convict and, therefore, the refusal of a passport was justified.

The High Court quashed the order dated 19 March 2021 passed by the Regional Passport Officer, Lucknow.

The Court held that the authorities had incorrectly recorded the existence of a pending criminal case when no such proceedings were pending.

The Court observed that the rejection order reflected a complete non-application of mind and appeared to have been passed in a casual and non-serious manner.

The Court held that Section 19 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 expressly protects a juvenile from any disqualification arising out of a conviction.

The Court emphasized that the legislative intent behind both the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 and the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 is to remove the stigma attached to juvenile offences and facilitate rehabilitation and reintegration.

The Court recognized the principle of "Fresh Start" and noted that records of juvenile delinquency should not be used to prejudice the future opportunities of a former juvenile offender.

The Court observed that the Right to be Forgotten in the context of juvenile justice must be treated as an absolute right to secure the future prospects of juveniles.

The Court reiterated that the right to travel abroad forms part of personal liberty protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The Court held that any restriction on the right to obtain a passport must satisfy the constitutional requirements of fairness, reasonableness, and proportionality.

The Court directed the Regional Passport Officer to reconsider the petitioner's application afresh without treating the juvenile conviction as a disqualification.

The Court further directed that the passport be issued if no other legal impediment existed.

The Court adopted a child-centric and reformative approach consistent with the philosophy of juvenile justice legislation.

It interpreted Section 19 broadly to ensure that juvenile offenders are not burdened with lifelong consequences for acts committed during childhood.

The judgment reinforces the rehabilitative objective of juvenile justice by emphasizing reintegration rather than punishment.

The Court gave substantive recognition to the Right to be Forgotten in the juvenile justice context, linking it directly with rehabilitation and dignity.

The decision strengthens the principle that juvenile records should not be used to deny employment, education, travel opportunities, or other future prospects.

By connecting the issue to Article 21, the Court elevated the protection of former juveniles from a statutory right to a constitutional concern.

The judgment advances the constitutional values of dignity, personal liberty, and proportionality.

It serves as an important precedent against arbitrary administrative action based on erased or legally irrelevant juvenile records.

The ruling clarifies that authorities must respect the legislative mandate of rehabilitation and cannot revive past juvenile delinquency to impose indirect penalties.

The decision contributes significantly to the evolving jurisprudence on privacy, dignity, rehabilitation, and the Right to be Forgotten in India.