Question Description
Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently held that Aadhaar Card is not proof to determine age of minor rape survivor. The Supreme Court, has earlier held that Aadhaar is merely a document issued by UIDAI and thus cannot supersede the statutory provisions of JJ Act. The bench noted that the JJ Act mandates the court to rely on birth certificate and school leaving certificate for determining age of an individual. In the absence of those documents, the Act provides for a medical opinion and if that if not avialable then ossification test for determining the age of an individual, the bench noted. Age determination is a crucial aspect since the benefits enshrined under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 are available only to a person who has not completed the age of eighteen years. Sec 2(35) of the 2015 Act defined juvenile as a child below the age of eighteen years. Under the 2015 Act, the importance of age determination has further due to the creation of an exception under which a child above sixteen years of age may be tried as an adult if he/she is accused of committing a heinous offence. Under the 2015 Act, a three layered procedure is mentioned for determination of age. Based upon appearance- In this case, a presumption is drawn in favour of a juvenile. If a person appears to be a child below 18 years, then the Child Welfare Committee (CWshall record the approximate age and proceed without waiting for further confirmation. Based upon documentary evidence- If there are reasonable grounds for doubting the age, then the date of birth mentioned in matriculation certificate, or birth certificate shall be relied upon. Based upon medical evidence- Medical opinion has to be relied upon only in the absence of documentary evidence.When matriculation certificate or birth certificate is available, courts usually refuse to entertain any objection over the age of a juvenile. This is mainly because documentary evidence is the primary evidence under Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In Nirbhaya’s case, the age of the accused was 17 years and six months according to his birth certificate and other school documents. Police requested the court to conduct ossification test. But the court refused the plea and held that it cannot permit the test in presence of a positive evidence such as birth certificate. In Raju Kumar v. State of Haryana, court admitted “mark sheet” as proof of age. Courts have always interpreted the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act in favour of juveniles. In Arnit Das v. State of Bihar, court held that while deciding whether an accused is a juvenile or not, a hyper-technical approach should not be adopted while appreciating the evidence adduced on behalf of the accused. When two views are possible are possible on the same evidence, the court should lean in favour of holding the accused to be juvenile in borderline cases.Q. In a legal case involving Aruna, who is accused of a serious offense committed when she was 16 years old, the prosecution initially presented her birth certificate as evidence to establish her age. However, Aruna contends that the certificate has been lost, and she has no other documentary evidence to confirm her age. She requests the court to conduct a medical test to determine her age. What should be the courts decision in accordance with the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015?a)The court should rely on Arunas school leaving certificate to determine her age.b)The court should rely on Arunas physical appearance and estimate her age following the provisions of the JJ Act.c)The court should allow the medical test as it represents the only available method to ascertain Arunas age.d)The court should decline to consider Arunas age and treat her as an adult due to the absence of documentary evidence.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently held that Aadhaar Card is not proof to determine age of minor rape survivor. The Supreme Court, has earlier held that Aadhaar is merely a document issued by UIDAI and thus cannot supersede the statutory provisions of JJ Act. The bench noted that the JJ Act mandates the court to rely on birth certificate and school leaving certificate for determining age of an individual. In the absence of those documents, the Act provides for a medical opinion and if that if not avialable then ossification test for determining the age of an individual, the bench noted. Age determination is a crucial aspect since the benefits enshrined under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 are available only to a person who has not completed the age of eighteen years. Sec 2(35) of the 2015 Act defined juvenile as a child below the age of eighteen years. Under the 2015 Act, the importance of age determination has further due to the creation of an exception under which a child above sixteen years of age may be tried as an adult if he/she is accused of committing a heinous offence. Under the 2015 Act, a three layered procedure is mentioned for determination of age. Based upon appearance- In this case, a presumption is drawn in favour of a juvenile. If a person appears to be a child below 18 years, then the Child Welfare Committee (CWshall record the approximate age and proceed without waiting for further confirmation. Based upon documentary evidence- If there are reasonable grounds for doubting the age, then the date of birth mentioned in matriculation certificate, or birth certificate shall be relied upon. Based upon medical evidence- Medical opinion has to be relied upon only in the absence of documentary evidence.When matriculation certificate or birth certificate is available, courts usually refuse to entertain any objection over the age of a juvenile. This is mainly because documentary evidence is the primary evidence under Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In Nirbhaya’s case, the age of the accused was 17 years and six months according to his birth certificate and other school documents. Police requested the court to conduct ossification test. But the court refused the plea and held that it cannot permit the test in presence of a positive evidence such as birth certificate. In Raju Kumar v. State of Haryana, court admitted “mark sheet” as proof of age. Courts have always interpreted the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act in favour of juveniles. In Arnit Das v. State of Bihar, court held that while deciding whether an accused is a juvenile or not, a hyper-technical approach should not be adopted while appreciating the evidence adduced on behalf of the accused. When two views are possible are possible on the same evidence, the court should lean in favour of holding the accused to be juvenile in borderline cases.Q. In a legal case involving Aruna, who is accused of a serious offense committed when she was 16 years old, the prosecution initially presented her birth certificate as evidence to establish her age. However, Aruna contends that the certificate has been lost, and she has no other documentary evidence to confirm her age. She requests the court to conduct a medical test to determine her age. What should be the courts decision in accordance with the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015?a)The court should rely on Arunas school leaving certificate to determine her age.b)The court should rely on Arunas physical appearance and estimate her age following the provisions of the JJ Act.c)The court should allow the medical test as it represents the only available method to ascertain Arunas age.d)The court should decline to consider Arunas age and treat her as an adult due to the absence of documentary evidence.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently held that Aadhaar Card is not proof to determine age of minor rape survivor. The Supreme Court, has earlier held that Aadhaar is merely a document issued by UIDAI and thus cannot supersede the statutory provisions of JJ Act. The bench noted that the JJ Act mandates the court to rely on birth certificate and school leaving certificate for determining age of an individual. In the absence of those documents, the Act provides for a medical opinion and if that if not avialable then ossification test for determining the age of an individual, the bench noted. Age determination is a crucial aspect since the benefits enshrined under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 are available only to a person who has not completed the age of eighteen years. Sec 2(35) of the 2015 Act defined juvenile as a child below the age of eighteen years. Under the 2015 Act, the importance of age determination has further due to the creation of an exception under which a child above sixteen years of age may be tried as an adult if he/she is accused of committing a heinous offence. Under the 2015 Act, a three layered procedure is mentioned for determination of age. Based upon appearance- In this case, a presumption is drawn in favour of a juvenile. If a person appears to be a child below 18 years, then the Child Welfare Committee (CWshall record the approximate age and proceed without waiting for further confirmation. Based upon documentary evidence- If there are reasonable grounds for doubting the age, then the date of birth mentioned in matriculation certificate, or birth certificate shall be relied upon. Based upon medical evidence- Medical opinion has to be relied upon only in the absence of documentary evidence.When matriculation certificate or birth certificate is available, courts usually refuse to entertain any objection over the age of a juvenile. This is mainly because documentary evidence is the primary evidence under Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In Nirbhaya’s case, the age of the accused was 17 years and six months according to his birth certificate and other school documents. Police requested the court to conduct ossification test. But the court refused the plea and held that it cannot permit the test in presence of a positive evidence such as birth certificate. In Raju Kumar v. State of Haryana, court admitted “mark sheet” as proof of age. Courts have always interpreted the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act in favour of juveniles. In Arnit Das v. State of Bihar, court held that while deciding whether an accused is a juvenile or not, a hyper-technical approach should not be adopted while appreciating the evidence adduced on behalf of the accused. When two views are possible are possible on the same evidence, the court should lean in favour of holding the accused to be juvenile in borderline cases.Q. In a legal case involving Aruna, who is accused of a serious offense committed when she was 16 years old, the prosecution initially presented her birth certificate as evidence to establish her age. However, Aruna contends that the certificate has been lost, and she has no other documentary evidence to confirm her age. She requests the court to conduct a medical test to determine her age. What should be the courts decision in accordance with the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015?a)The court should rely on Arunas school leaving certificate to determine her age.b)The court should rely on Arunas physical appearance and estimate her age following the provisions of the JJ Act.c)The court should allow the medical test as it represents the only available method to ascertain Arunas age.d)The court should decline to consider Arunas age and treat her as an adult due to the absence of documentary evidence.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently held that Aadhaar Card is not proof to determine age of minor rape survivor. The Supreme Court, has earlier held that Aadhaar is merely a document issued by UIDAI and thus cannot supersede the statutory provisions of JJ Act. The bench noted that the JJ Act mandates the court to rely on birth certificate and school leaving certificate for determining age of an individual. In the absence of those documents, the Act provides for a medical opinion and if that if not avialable then ossification test for determining the age of an individual, the bench noted. Age determination is a crucial aspect since the benefits enshrined under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 are available only to a person who has not completed the age of eighteen years. Sec 2(35) of the 2015 Act defined juvenile as a child below the age of eighteen years. Under the 2015 Act, the importance of age determination has further due to the creation of an exception under which a child above sixteen years of age may be tried as an adult if he/she is accused of committing a heinous offence. Under the 2015 Act, a three layered procedure is mentioned for determination of age. Based upon appearance- In this case, a presumption is drawn in favour of a juvenile. If a person appears to be a child below 18 years, then the Child Welfare Committee (CWshall record the approximate age and proceed without waiting for further confirmation. Based upon documentary evidence- If there are reasonable grounds for doubting the age, then the date of birth mentioned in matriculation certificate, or birth certificate shall be relied upon. Based upon medical evidence- Medical opinion has to be relied upon only in the absence of documentary evidence.When matriculation certificate or birth certificate is available, courts usually refuse to entertain any objection over the age of a juvenile. This is mainly because documentary evidence is the primary evidence under Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In Nirbhaya’s case, the age of the accused was 17 years and six months according to his birth certificate and other school documents. Police requested the court to conduct ossification test. But the court refused the plea and held that it cannot permit the test in presence of a positive evidence such as birth certificate. In Raju Kumar v. State of Haryana, court admitted “mark sheet” as proof of age. Courts have always interpreted the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act in favour of juveniles. In Arnit Das v. State of Bihar, court held that while deciding whether an accused is a juvenile or not, a hyper-technical approach should not be adopted while appreciating the evidence adduced on behalf of the accused. When two views are possible are possible on the same evidence, the court should lean in favour of holding the accused to be juvenile in borderline cases.Q. In a legal case involving Aruna, who is accused of a serious offense committed when she was 16 years old, the prosecution initially presented her birth certificate as evidence to establish her age. However, Aruna contends that the certificate has been lost, and she has no other documentary evidence to confirm her age. She requests the court to conduct a medical test to determine her age. What should be the courts decision in accordance with the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015?a)The court should rely on Arunas school leaving certificate to determine her age.b)The court should rely on Arunas physical appearance and estimate her age following the provisions of the JJ Act.c)The court should allow the medical test as it represents the only available method to ascertain Arunas age.d)The court should decline to consider Arunas age and treat her as an adult due to the absence of documentary evidence.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently held that Aadhaar Card is not proof to determine age of minor rape survivor. The Supreme Court, has earlier held that Aadhaar is merely a document issued by UIDAI and thus cannot supersede the statutory provisions of JJ Act. The bench noted that the JJ Act mandates the court to rely on birth certificate and school leaving certificate for determining age of an individual. In the absence of those documents, the Act provides for a medical opinion and if that if not avialable then ossification test for determining the age of an individual, the bench noted. Age determination is a crucial aspect since the benefits enshrined under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 are available only to a person who has not completed the age of eighteen years. Sec 2(35) of the 2015 Act defined juvenile as a child below the age of eighteen years. Under the 2015 Act, the importance of age determination has further due to the creation of an exception under which a child above sixteen years of age may be tried as an adult if he/she is accused of committing a heinous offence. Under the 2015 Act, a three layered procedure is mentioned for determination of age. Based upon appearance- In this case, a presumption is drawn in favour of a juvenile. If a person appears to be a child below 18 years, then the Child Welfare Committee (CWshall record the approximate age and proceed without waiting for further confirmation. Based upon documentary evidence- If there are reasonable grounds for doubting the age, then the date of birth mentioned in matriculation certificate, or birth certificate shall be relied upon. Based upon medical evidence- Medical opinion has to be relied upon only in the absence of documentary evidence.When matriculation certificate or birth certificate is available, courts usually refuse to entertain any objection over the age of a juvenile. This is mainly because documentary evidence is the primary evidence under Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In Nirbhaya’s case, the age of the accused was 17 years and six months according to his birth certificate and other school documents. Police requested the court to conduct ossification test. But the court refused the plea and held that it cannot permit the test in presence of a positive evidence such as birth certificate. In Raju Kumar v. State of Haryana, court admitted “mark sheet” as proof of age. Courts have always interpreted the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act in favour of juveniles. In Arnit Das v. State of Bihar, court held that while deciding whether an accused is a juvenile or not, a hyper-technical approach should not be adopted while appreciating the evidence adduced on behalf of the accused. When two views are possible are possible on the same evidence, the court should lean in favour of holding the accused to be juvenile in borderline cases.Q. In a legal case involving Aruna, who is accused of a serious offense committed when she was 16 years old, the prosecution initially presented her birth certificate as evidence to establish her age. However, Aruna contends that the certificate has been lost, and she has no other documentary evidence to confirm her age. She requests the court to conduct a medical test to determine her age. What should be the courts decision in accordance with the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015?a)The court should rely on Arunas school leaving certificate to determine her age.b)The court should rely on Arunas physical appearance and estimate her age following the provisions of the JJ Act.c)The court should allow the medical test as it represents the only available method to ascertain Arunas age.d)The court should decline to consider Arunas age and treat her as an adult due to the absence of documentary evidence.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently held that Aadhaar Card is not proof to determine age of minor rape survivor. The Supreme Court, has earlier held that Aadhaar is merely a document issued by UIDAI and thus cannot supersede the statutory provisions of JJ Act. The bench noted that the JJ Act mandates the court to rely on birth certificate and school leaving certificate for determining age of an individual. In the absence of those documents, the Act provides for a medical opinion and if that if not avialable then ossification test for determining the age of an individual, the bench noted. Age determination is a crucial aspect since the benefits enshrined under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 are available only to a person who has not completed the age of eighteen years. Sec 2(35) of the 2015 Act defined juvenile as a child below the age of eighteen years. Under the 2015 Act, the importance of age determination has further due to the creation of an exception under which a child above sixteen years of age may be tried as an adult if he/she is accused of committing a heinous offence. Under the 2015 Act, a three layered procedure is mentioned for determination of age. Based upon appearance- In this case, a presumption is drawn in favour of a juvenile. If a person appears to be a child below 18 years, then the Child Welfare Committee (CWshall record the approximate age and proceed without waiting for further confirmation. Based upon documentary evidence- If there are reasonable grounds for doubting the age, then the date of birth mentioned in matriculation certificate, or birth certificate shall be relied upon. Based upon medical evidence- Medical opinion has to be relied upon only in the absence of documentary evidence.When matriculation certificate or birth certificate is available, courts usually refuse to entertain any objection over the age of a juvenile. This is mainly because documentary evidence is the primary evidence under Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In Nirbhaya’s case, the age of the accused was 17 years and six months according to his birth certificate and other school documents. Police requested the court to conduct ossification test. But the court refused the plea and held that it cannot permit the test in presence of a positive evidence such as birth certificate. In Raju Kumar v. State of Haryana, court admitted “mark sheet” as proof of age. Courts have always interpreted the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act in favour of juveniles. In Arnit Das v. State of Bihar, court held that while deciding whether an accused is a juvenile or not, a hyper-technical approach should not be adopted while appreciating the evidence adduced on behalf of the accused. When two views are possible are possible on the same evidence, the court should lean in favour of holding the accused to be juvenile in borderline cases.Q. In a legal case involving Aruna, who is accused of a serious offense committed when she was 16 years old, the prosecution initially presented her birth certificate as evidence to establish her age. However, Aruna contends that the certificate has been lost, and she has no other documentary evidence to confirm her age. She requests the court to conduct a medical test to determine her age. What should be the courts decision in accordance with the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015?a)The court should rely on Arunas school leaving certificate to determine her age.b)The court should rely on Arunas physical appearance and estimate her age following the provisions of the JJ Act.c)The court should allow the medical test as it represents the only available method to ascertain Arunas age.d)The court should decline to consider Arunas age and treat her as an adult due to the absence of documentary evidence.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently held that Aadhaar Card is not proof to determine age of minor rape survivor. The Supreme Court, has earlier held that Aadhaar is merely a document issued by UIDAI and thus cannot supersede the statutory provisions of JJ Act. The bench noted that the JJ Act mandates the court to rely on birth certificate and school leaving certificate for determining age of an individual. In the absence of those documents, the Act provides for a medical opinion and if that if not avialable then ossification test for determining the age of an individual, the bench noted. Age determination is a crucial aspect since the benefits enshrined under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 are available only to a person who has not completed the age of eighteen years. Sec 2(35) of the 2015 Act defined juvenile as a child below the age of eighteen years. Under the 2015 Act, the importance of age determination has further due to the creation of an exception under which a child above sixteen years of age may be tried as an adult if he/she is accused of committing a heinous offence. Under the 2015 Act, a three layered procedure is mentioned for determination of age. Based upon appearance- In this case, a presumption is drawn in favour of a juvenile. If a person appears to be a child below 18 years, then the Child Welfare Committee (CWshall record the approximate age and proceed without waiting for further confirmation. Based upon documentary evidence- If there are reasonable grounds for doubting the age, then the date of birth mentioned in matriculation certificate, or birth certificate shall be relied upon. Based upon medical evidence- Medical opinion has to be relied upon only in the absence of documentary evidence.When matriculation certificate or birth certificate is available, courts usually refuse to entertain any objection over the age of a juvenile. This is mainly because documentary evidence is the primary evidence under Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In Nirbhaya’s case, the age of the accused was 17 years and six months according to his birth certificate and other school documents. Police requested the court to conduct ossification test. But the court refused the plea and held that it cannot permit the test in presence of a positive evidence such as birth certificate. In Raju Kumar v. State of Haryana, court admitted “mark sheet” as proof of age. Courts have always interpreted the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act in favour of juveniles. In Arnit Das v. State of Bihar, court held that while deciding whether an accused is a juvenile or not, a hyper-technical approach should not be adopted while appreciating the evidence adduced on behalf of the accused. When two views are possible are possible on the same evidence, the court should lean in favour of holding the accused to be juvenile in borderline cases.Q. In a legal case involving Aruna, who is accused of a serious offense committed when she was 16 years old, the prosecution initially presented her birth certificate as evidence to establish her age. However, Aruna contends that the certificate has been lost, and she has no other documentary evidence to confirm her age. She requests the court to conduct a medical test to determine her age. What should be the courts decision in accordance with the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015?a)The court should rely on Arunas school leaving certificate to determine her age.b)The court should rely on Arunas physical appearance and estimate her age following the provisions of the JJ Act.c)The court should allow the medical test as it represents the only available method to ascertain Arunas age.d)The court should decline to consider Arunas age and treat her as an adult due to the absence of documentary evidence.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently held that Aadhaar Card is not proof to determine age of minor rape survivor. The Supreme Court, has earlier held that Aadhaar is merely a document issued by UIDAI and thus cannot supersede the statutory provisions of JJ Act. The bench noted that the JJ Act mandates the court to rely on birth certificate and school leaving certificate for determining age of an individual. In the absence of those documents, the Act provides for a medical opinion and if that if not avialable then ossification test for determining the age of an individual, the bench noted. Age determination is a crucial aspect since the benefits enshrined under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 are available only to a person who has not completed the age of eighteen years. Sec 2(35) of the 2015 Act defined juvenile as a child below the age of eighteen years. Under the 2015 Act, the importance of age determination has further due to the creation of an exception under which a child above sixteen years of age may be tried as an adult if he/she is accused of committing a heinous offence. Under the 2015 Act, a three layered procedure is mentioned for determination of age. Based upon appearance- In this case, a presumption is drawn in favour of a juvenile. If a person appears to be a child below 18 years, then the Child Welfare Committee (CWshall record the approximate age and proceed without waiting for further confirmation. Based upon documentary evidence- If there are reasonable grounds for doubting the age, then the date of birth mentioned in matriculation certificate, or birth certificate shall be relied upon. Based upon medical evidence- Medical opinion has to be relied upon only in the absence of documentary evidence.When matriculation certificate or birth certificate is available, courts usually refuse to entertain any objection over the age of a juvenile. This is mainly because documentary evidence is the primary evidence under Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In Nirbhaya’s case, the age of the accused was 17 years and six months according to his birth certificate and other school documents. Police requested the court to conduct ossification test. But the court refused the plea and held that it cannot permit the test in presence of a positive evidence such as birth certificate. In Raju Kumar v. State of Haryana, court admitted “mark sheet” as proof of age. Courts have always interpreted the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act in favour of juveniles. In Arnit Das v. State of Bihar, court held that while deciding whether an accused is a juvenile or not, a hyper-technical approach should not be adopted while appreciating the evidence adduced on behalf of the accused. When two views are possible are possible on the same evidence, the court should lean in favour of holding the accused to be juvenile in borderline cases.Q. In a legal case involving Aruna, who is accused of a serious offense committed when she was 16 years old, the prosecution initially presented her birth certificate as evidence to establish her age. However, Aruna contends that the certificate has been lost, and she has no other documentary evidence to confirm her age. She requests the court to conduct a medical test to determine her age. What should be the courts decision in accordance with the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015?a)The court should rely on Arunas school leaving certificate to determine her age.b)The court should rely on Arunas physical appearance and estimate her age following the provisions of the JJ Act.c)The court should allow the medical test as it represents the only available method to ascertain Arunas age.d)The court should decline to consider Arunas age and treat her as an adult due to the absence of documentary evidence.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:Madhya Pradesh High Court has recently held that Aadhaar Card is not proof to determine age of minor rape survivor. The Supreme Court, has earlier held that Aadhaar is merely a document issued by UIDAI and thus cannot supersede the statutory provisions of JJ Act. The bench noted that the JJ Act mandates the court to rely on birth certificate and school leaving certificate for determining age of an individual. In the absence of those documents, the Act provides for a medical opinion and if that if not avialable then ossification test for determining the age of an individual, the bench noted. Age determination is a crucial aspect since the benefits enshrined under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 are available only to a person who has not completed the age of eighteen years. Sec 2(35) of the 2015 Act defined juvenile as a child below the age of eighteen years. Under the 2015 Act, the importance of age determination has further due to the creation of an exception under which a child above sixteen years of age may be tried as an adult if he/she is accused of committing a heinous offence. Under the 2015 Act, a three layered procedure is mentioned for determination of age. Based upon appearance- In this case, a presumption is drawn in favour of a juvenile. If a person appears to be a child below 18 years, then the Child Welfare Committee (CWshall record the approximate age and proceed without waiting for further confirmation. Based upon documentary evidence- If there are reasonable grounds for doubting the age, then the date of birth mentioned in matriculation certificate, or birth certificate shall be relied upon. Based upon medical evidence- Medical opinion has to be relied upon only in the absence of documentary evidence.When matriculation certificate or birth certificate is available, courts usually refuse to entertain any objection over the age of a juvenile. This is mainly because documentary evidence is the primary evidence under Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In Nirbhaya’s case, the age of the accused was 17 years and six months according to his birth certificate and other school documents. Police requested the court to conduct ossification test. But the court refused the plea and held that it cannot permit the test in presence of a positive evidence such as birth certificate. In Raju Kumar v. State of Haryana, court admitted “mark sheet” as proof of age. Courts have always interpreted the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act in favour of juveniles. In Arnit Das v. State of Bihar, court held that while deciding whether an accused is a juvenile or not, a hyper-technical approach should not be adopted while appreciating the evidence adduced on behalf of the accused. When two views are possible are possible on the same evidence, the court should lean in favour of holding the accused to be juvenile in borderline cases.Q. In a legal case involving Aruna, who is accused of a serious offense committed when she was 16 years old, the prosecution initially presented her birth certificate as evidence to establish her age. However, Aruna contends that the certificate has been lost, and she has no other documentary evidence to confirm her age. She requests the court to conduct a medical test to determine her age. What should be the courts decision in accordance with the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015?a)The court should rely on Arunas school leaving certificate to determine her age.b)The court should rely on Arunas physical appearance and estimate her age following the provisions of the JJ Act.c)The court should allow the medical test as it represents the only available method to ascertain Arunas age.d)The court should decline to consider Arunas age and treat her as an adult due to the absence of documentary evidence.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.