Case Name: Kethavath Jyothi v. State of Andhra Pradesh & 3 others
Writ Petition No.: 22154 OF 2026
Date: Tuesday, 13th October, 2026
Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Quorum: Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Hon’ble Sri Justice Alapati Giridhar
FACTS
The petitioner, the paternal aunt of three minor detainees (Children in Conflict with the Law or CCLs), filed a writ remedy known as habeas corpus to secure their production before the court. The detainees were referred to in the present case as Accused Nos. 8 to 10, in a case registered with the Police Station located at Nagarjunasagar (Crime No. 52 of 2026). All three minor juveniles were arrested on August 2, 2026, and were brought before the Juvenile Justice Board of Guntur on August 3, 2026. The Juvenile Justice Board directed the police to produce the boys, but instructed that proof of age be produced for Boys 2 and 3. The parents of Boy 1 and the father of Boys 2 and 3 were detained in the same case. Because there was no boys’ observation home in Guntur at that time, the police sent Boy 1 to the Sakhi One Stop Centre for temporary custody and Boys 2 and 3 to Mathru Sri Children’s Home. After the boy’s age was confirmed after July 6, 2026 by the Juvenile Justice Board, the Board ordered their transfer to Government Observation Homes in Visakhapatnam and Vijayawada respectively.
LEGAL ISSUES
- Whether the custody of the juvenile convicts in recognised safe institutions between the dates of August 3 and August 6, 2026, without any explicit detention order from the JJB, was unauthorised or illegal detention by the police in violation of the provisions of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution.
- Whether the arrest and custody of the CCLs by a normal police officer, reportedly not a designated Child Welfare Police Officer, invalidated the entire procedure.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Constitution of India:
- Articles 21 and 22: These protect life (right to life) and personal liberty and guard every person against illegal detention.
- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015:
- Section 10: Lays down how a child alleged to be in conflict with the law is to be apprehended.
- Section 12: Entitles a person who is apparently a child to bail.
- Section 107: Provides for the Child Welfare Police Officer who handles the child’s case.
- Section 2(46): Defines a “place of safety”. Section 47: Governs observation homes, where the child may be kept during the inquiry.
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS):
- Sections 191(2) and 191(3): Rioting and rioting while armed with a deadly weapon.
- Section 109(1): Attempt to murder.
- Section 118(1): Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
- Section 190: Makes every member of an unlawful assembly liable for offences committed in pursuit of the common object; Sections 191(2), 191(3), 109(1) and 118(1) are read with it.
ARGUMENTS
PETITIONER – The petition alleged that, without any order by the Juvenile Justice Board putting the detenues in custody of the police between August 3 and August 6, 2026, their detention was illegal and also was devoid of any legal authority. The petition added that the police officer who was responsible for the investigation was not a Special Juvenile Police Officer in accordance with the provisions of the JJ Act, Section 107, and thus it rendered the case impracticable, relying on the legal precedent established by the case of Smt. Durga v. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Crl.A.No.27 of 2019).
RESPONDENT – The State mentioned that the detenues were never present in police lockups. As bail was not given and no known family members were available, they were lodged in recognised safe houses. The State referred to the G.O.Ms.No. 12 (February 11, 2016) by which Station House Officers (SHOs) were designated as Child Welfare Police Officers, which countered the objection raised by the petitioner.
ANALYSIS
The High Court has scrutinised Sections 10 and 12 of the JJ Act, which explicitly state that a CCL must not be lodged in a police lockup or jail. The Court depended largely on the Supreme Court’s verdict in Re Exploitation of Children in Orphanages in the State of Tamil Nadu v. Union of India (WP(Crl) No.102 of 2007), establishing the principle that if a child is not granted bail, then the child must be kept in an observation home or any other suitable shelter. The court also referred to Pooja Gagan Jain v. State of Maharashtra (2024:BHC-AS:24700-DB), observing that lodging in sheltered institutions is justifiable if bail is refused.
According to the Court, the order of the JJB’s docket simply “returned” the CCLs to the police for waiting for age verification, since it could not pass a specific custody order as there was no available boys’ home in Guntur. Under the situation as stated, the police had complied with the legislation by keeping the CCLs at the Sakhi One Stop Centre and Mathru Sri Children Home. Since no jail or lockup was used, the detention was not illegal. The Court also added that the producing officer, acting as an SHO, was rightly appointed as a Child Welfare Police Officer as per the state’s order G.O.Ms.No. 12.
JUDGEMENT
The writ petition for Habeas Corpus was rejected by the High Court after it declared that there had been no illegal detention in the case. However, noting a major flaw in the system, the Court ordered the Juvenile Justice Boards in Andhra Pradesh to direct that all Children in Conflict with Law (CCLs) be kept in observation homes or in safe custody during the course of investigation or inquiries instead of merely “sending them back” to the police. In addition, the Court instructed that the State Government must see to it that there is at least one observation home in each district.
CONCLUSION
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has made it clear to law enforcement agencies regarding their duty towards Children in Conflict with the Law. By confirming the practice of placing (CCLs) in institutions recognised by the law, the court has confirmed its commitment to the spirit of the Juvenile Justice Law.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY: SWETHA DUTTA
Read the Judgment copy below : Kethavath Jyothi v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors
