Court directs Juvenile Justice Boards to pass specific placement orders for children in conflict with law and urges state to establish more observation homes across districts.
In a significant judgment delivered on October 13, 2026, the Andhra Pradesh High Court (Division Bench) dismissed a writ petition challenging the legality of custody of three minors apprehended under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) and placed in child care institutions pending further orders by the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB). The petition, filed by the paternal aunt of the minors, contended that the police illegally detained the children without a formal remand order from the JJB.
The case arose when the minors, alleged to be in conflict with law, were apprehended and produced before the Juvenile Justice Board, Guntur, within 24 hours as mandated under Section 10 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act). The Board did not grant bail and directed the police to produce age proof for two of the minors. During the interim period, the children were placed not in police lockups or jails-which is prohibited by law-but in recognized safe custody homes: the Sakhi One Stop Centre for the girl minor and Mathru Sri Children's Home for the boys.
The petitioner argued that the police had no authority to detain the children in these institutions without specific orders from the JJB, thus amounting to illegal detention violating Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. However, the State countered that the children were under the custody of designated Child Welfare Police Officers (CWPOs), as per the Government Order Ms.No.12 dated February 11, 2016, which designated Station House Officers/Sub-Inspectors as CWPOs. The police acted in good faith to ensure the safety and welfare of the minors during the pendency of age verification and subsequent hearings before the JJB.
The Court meticulously examined the provisions of the JJ Act, particularly Sections 10 and 12, and relied on authoritative Supreme Court precedents such as Re Exploitation of Children in Orphanages in the State of Tamil Nadu v. Union of India and the High Court of Rajasthan judgment in Smt. Durga v. State of Rajasthan. It emphasized that while bail is generally the rule for children in conflict with law, when bail is denied or not granted immediately, the child must be kept only in an observation home or a place of safety, never in police lockups or jail. The Court found that the placement of the minors in government-approved child care institutions pending further orders was consistent with the legal mandate.
Further, the Court clarified that the Juvenile Justice Board's docket orders "returning" the children to the police for re-production did not imply rejection of remand or automatic release. Instead, it meant the children were to be kept in safe custody pending further hearings. The police were justified in not releasing the minors in the absence of bail or lawful custody orders.
In a significant directive aimed at strengthening juvenile justice administration in Andhra Pradesh, the Court ordered all Juvenile Justice Boards to pass explicit orders for the placement of children in observation homes or places of safety during the pendency of inquiries whenever bail is not granted. It also directed the State government to establish sufficient observation homes, preferably at least one in each district, to avoid such custodial ambiguities in the future.
The writ petition was ultimately dismissed as devoid of merit, upholding the lawful custody and treatment accorded to the children under the JJ Act. The judgment reinforces the importance of following statutory safeguards for children in conflict with law and ensures their protection from unlawful detention and custodial harm.
Bottom Line:
Habeas corpus concerning children in conflict with law - Where minors were produced before Juvenile Justice Board within 24 hours and, pending age proof/ further orders, were kept not in police lockup or jail but in recognised child care institutions/ safe custody homes, such custody was not illegal merely because JJB had not passed a specific placement order - Police could not release children on their own when bail was not granted and children were returned for re-production before JJB - Directions issued to JJBs to pass specific orders for placement in observation home/place of safety and to State to establish sufficient observation homes.
Statutory provision(s):
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 Sections 10, 12, 47, 107; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Sections 190, 191(2), 191(3), 109(1), 118(1); Constitution of India Articles 21, 22, 226
Kethavath Jyothi v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (AP)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3000259
