Court Rules Juvenile Justice Board Sole Authority for Minors in Conflict with Law; Police and Magistrate Censured for Procedural Lapses
In a significant judgment delivered on August 31, 2026, the Andhra Pradesh High Court (Division Bench comprising Justices Ninala Jayasurya and T.C.D. Sekhar) quashed the judicial remand order of a minor, Veligatla Jaswanth, aged 17 years 11 months, who was erroneously remanded to judicial custody by a Magistrate despite statutory protections under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
The case arose from Crime No.106 of 2026 registered at Samisragudem Police Station, East Godavari district. The petitioner, Veligatla Venkata Narayana, challenged the arrest and remand of his son, contending that the police failed to properly verify the minor's age and that the Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to remand a child in conflict with law to judicial custody. The petitioner's son was taken by unidentified individuals from his residence on August 15, 2026, and subsequently produced before the Magistrate on August 19, 2026, who ordered his judicial custody until September 1, 2026.
The petitioner's counsel submitted that the minor's date of birth, 12.09.2008, was clear from official documents, and that the police had deliberately misrepresented the age as 19 years before the Magistrate, coercing the minor not to disclose his true age or any ill-treatment suffered. This misrepresentation led to the improper remand order, in violation of Sections 8, 10, and 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act, which assigns exclusive jurisdiction over minors in conflict with law to the Juvenile Justice Board.
The respondents, represented by the Advocate General, argued that the police were under the impression that the minor's year of birth was 2006 due to blurred Aadhar details and that neither the petitioner nor the minor had raised the age issue before the Magistrate. However, the Court was not persuaded by these arguments, highlighting the duty of police and judicial officers to exercise utmost care in verifying the age of a child and ensuring compliance with statutory safeguards.
Upon examining the certified copy of the minor's Aadhar Card and other materials, the Court found that the date of birth was indeed 12.09.2008, making the petitioner's son a minor at the time of the alleged offence and arrest. Consequently, the Court held that the Magistrate's remand order was without jurisdiction and illegal, ordering immediate release of the minor from judicial custody. The Court further directed that the minor be dealt with strictly in accordance with the Juvenile Justice Act and its Rules.
In a stern rebuke to the police, the Court imposed a personal cost of Rs. 10,000 on the Station House Officer of Samisragudem Police Station, payable to the Andhra Pradesh High Court Legal Services Committee, for procedural lapses and failure to protect the rights of the child.
This judgment reiterates the paramount importance of adherence to the Juvenile Justice Act's provisions, safeguarding the rights of children in conflict with law, and ensuring that law enforcement and judicial authorities act diligently to prevent illegal detention and protect minors from harm.
Bottom Line:
Juvenile Justice - Arrest and remand of a minor - Illegal remand order set aside as Juvenile Justice Board is the competent authority to deal with a Child in Conflict with Law.
Statutory provision(s):
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Sections 8, 10, 12
