A Juvenile Cannot Be Jailed — Detention Without Determination of Age Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court Issues Habeas Corpus for Boy Jailed Since 2017

“Once Claim of Juvenility is Raised, Continued Detention in Jail Becomes Illegal” —  In a significant ruling on 25 September 2025, the Allahabad High Court, in Habeas Corpus Writ Petition, held that the continued judicial custody of a juvenile in jail without proper age determination violates Article 21 of the Constitution and the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Sandeep Jain ruled that the detention of Pawan Kumar, the petitioner (referred to as the corpus), in Naini Central Jail since 2017 for a murder charge, was illegal, as he had claimed juvenility during trial, supported by school records indicating he was only 14 years, 3 months and 19 days at the time of the alleged offence.

The Court held: “The continued detention of a child in jail even after a credible claim of juvenility is raised and supported by evidence is unconstitutional and in violation of Section 10(1) of the JJ Act, 2015.”

The High Court issued a writ of habeas corpus, ordering his immediate release, stating that a juvenile cannot be lodged in jail even during inquiry into age, and directed the trial court to determine his age as per Section 9(2) of the JJ Act.

“Trial Court Acted Mechanically, Board Had No Jurisdiction” – Court Calls Order Declaring Juvenility a Legal Nullity

At the heart of the legal dispute was the jurisdictional error committed by the Sessions Court, which, upon being shown the school register and hearing the school principal's testimony establishing the petitioner’s age, failed to record a finding on age as required under Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act. Instead, the trial court mechanically forwarded the matter to the Juvenile Justice Board, which then declared the petitioner a juvenile on 15 May 2025.

The High Court held: “The Board had no jurisdiction under Section 9(2) of the Act where the claim of juvenility is raised before a Court. The order of the Board is, therefore, a nullity in the eyes of law.” [Paras 20–21, 46]

Further clarifying the law, the Court reiterated that: “Only the Court can determine the age when the juvenility claim is raised before it. Referral to the Board in such circumstances is wholly without jurisdiction.”

The judgment relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rishipal Singh Solanki v. State of U.P., (2022) 8 SCC 602, to distinguish between claims raised under Section 9(2) before a Court and those raised before the Board under Section 10 or 94.

“A Judicial Order Does Not Sanitize Illegal Detention” – Habeas Corpus Maintains Its Relevance Despite Judicial Custody

The State's principal objection, that habeas corpus was not maintainable due to the judicial nature of the custody, was firmly rejected by the Court. Referring to Manubhai Ratilal Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2013) 1 SCC 314, and Kanu Sanyal v. District Magistrate, Darjeeling, (1974) 4 SCC 141, the Court clarified:

“Even if the initial detention is pursuant to a judicial order, the legality of the present detention must be independently examined. Habeas corpus is maintainable if the continued custody is illegal.” [Paras 22–31, 37–45]

The Court further noted: “Once the claim of juvenility was raised, Section 9(4) mandates the Court to place the individual in a ‘place of safety’, not in jail. Hence, the continued detention of the petitioner became illegal from the moment the claim was made.”

“Even a Child Accused of Murder Cannot Be Jailed Before Proper Assessment” – JJ Act Prohibits Jail Custody Without Due Process

Critically analyzing the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, the Court observed that no child can be lodged in a police lockup or jail before the age of 21, unless certain specific conditions are fulfilled under Sections 15 and 19, involving preliminary assessment and trial as an adult.

The Court observed: “Section 10(1) contains a categorical prohibition against placing a child in jail, regardless of the offence. This prohibition is absolute, unless there is a proper order under Section 19 after following the process under Section 15.” [Paras 44–49]

The Court further clarified: “Under Section 9(4), even during the process of age inquiry, the person must be placed in a ‘place of safety’ and cannot be kept in jail.”

“Prosecution Cannot Hide Behind Bail Remedy — Habeas Corpus Maintains Primacy”

Rejecting the State’s argument that the petitioner should have applied for bail under Section 12 of the JJ Act, the Court clarified:

“Until the trial court determines the petitioner’s age and forwards him to the Board, Section 12 does not apply. The petitioner remains in illegal custody with no legal remedy under the JJ Act.”

The Bench underscored that bail under Section 12 is available only after the Board is seized of the matter, which had not legally occurred in this case due to the invalid referral.

“Juvenile Can’t Be Held Beyond 3 Years Even for Heinous Offences” – Continued 8-Year Custody Illegal per Section 18

The petitioner had been in jail since April 2017, amounting to over 8 years in detention, despite the JJ Act clearly stating that no child may be held for more than three years, even for heinous offences.

Citing Section 18 of the JJ Act, the Court held: “The maximum period of custody for a juvenile in conflict with law is three years. The petitioner’s eight-year-long incarceration is a grave constitutional wrong.”

Court Directions and Final Relief: Habeas Corpus Allowed, Petitioner Released, Trial Court Directed to Determine Age

Allowing the habeas corpus writ petition in part, the Court issued the following directives:

“The Jail Superintendent, Naini Central Jail, Prayagraj is directed to immediately release petitioner no. 1, Pawan Kumar.”

“The Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj shall ensure the production of the petitioner before the trial court, which shall determine his age in accordance with Section 9(2) of the JJ Act.”

“If the trial court finds that the petitioner was a juvenile, he shall be forwarded to the Board for further proceedings under Sections 14, 15, and 18. If not, the trial shall proceed as per law.”

The Court also directed that if any preventive custody is required during the age inquiry, the trial court may place the petitioner in a ‘place of safety’ as defined under Section 2(46) of the Act, and not in jail.

A Systemic Reminder: Mechanical Orders Cannot Trump Constitutional Rights

In scathing remarks about procedural apathy, the Court warned that routine, mechanical referrals to the Board without judicial application of mind in juvenility claims defeat the purpose of the Juvenile Justice system and violate Article 21 of the Constitution.

The judgment stands as a critical precedent in affirming the non-negotiable rights of juveniles in conflict with law, especially regarding detention safeguards, proper age determination, and limits of custody.

Date of Decision: 25 September 2025