(1) Where, it is obvious to the Committee or the Board, based on the appearance of the person, that the said person is a child, the Committee or the Board shall record such observation stating the age of the child as nearly as may be and proceed with the inquiry under section 14 or section 36, as the case may be, without waiting for further confirmation of the age.
(2) In case, the Committee or the Board has reasonable grounds for doubt regarding whether the person brought before it is a child or not, the Committee or the Board, as the case may be, shall undertake the process of age determination, by seeking evidence by obtaining—
(i) the date of birth certificate from the school, or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination Board, if available; and in the absence thereof;
(ii) the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat;
(iii) and only in the absence of (i) and (ii) above, age shall be determined by an ossification test or any other latest medical age determination test conducted on the orders of the Committee or the Board:
Provided such age determination test shall be completed within fifteen days from the date of such order.
Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 94
Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 establishes the authoritative, mandatory hierarchy of evidence for determining the age of a person claiming juvenility or child status.
(i) The date of birth certificate from the school, or the matriculation or equivalent certificate from the concerned examination Board, if available; and in the absence thereof;
(ii) The birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat; and only in the absence of both (i) and (ii);
(iii) An age determination conducted through an ossification test or any other latest medical age determination test conducted on the orders of the Board or Committee.
Crucially, the proviso mandates that such medical age determination must be completed within thirty days. Sub-section (3) provides that the age recorded by the Board or Committee shall be deemed to be the true age of the person for all purposes under this Act.
Section 94 codified the evidentiary rules that were previously subject to conflicting judicial interpretations under Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules. The Supreme Court's ruling in Rishipal Singh Solanki reaffirmed the rigid hierarchy: matriculation or school certificates hold absolute first priority; municipal birth certificates hold second priority; and medical ossification is strictly a last resort. When ossification tests are used, established precedent requires applying the standard margin of error of one year in favor of juvenility.