Introduction:

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed the special protection available to children in conflict with law, holding that a minor cannot be subjected to the ordinary criminal process applicable to an adult accused. The Court set aside the remand of a 17-year-old boy after finding that he had been wrongly treated as an adult by the police and produced before a regular Magistrate instead of being dealt with under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The Court held that the remand order was illegal, unsustainable and without jurisdiction and directed the immediate release of the child from judicial custody.

The ruling was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Ninala Jayasurya and Justice T.C.D. Sekhar in Veligatla Venkata Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Writ Petition No. 24721 of 2026. The writ petition was filed by the father of the minor boy challenging the arrest and remand of his son in connection with a criminal case.

The controversy arose primarily from a dispute concerning the age of the accused. According to the petitioner’s case, his son was born on September 12, 2008. He was therefore approximately 17 years, 11 months and 19 days old at the relevant time and was below 18 years of age both on the date of the alleged offence and on the date when he was remanded to judicial custody.

The distinction was legally significant because the Juvenile Justice Act establishes a separate legal framework for children who are alleged to have committed offences. A child in conflict with law is not to be treated in the same manner as an adult accused. The Act incorporates a child-sensitive procedure that emphasises care, protection, rehabilitation, social reintegration and the best interests of the child. It also assigns jurisdiction over such children to the Juvenile Justice Board rather than the ordinary criminal court exercising jurisdiction over adult accused.

The petitioner alleged that despite the availability of material showing the child’s actual date of birth, the police treated him as an adult. It was alleged that the boy’s Aadhaar details had been furnished to the police, but that the portion relating to his date of birth had been removed, obliterated or otherwise not properly represented. According to the petitioner, the child’s age was consequently shown to the Magistrate as 19 years.

The petitioner further alleged that the child had been coerced into not disclosing his correct age and had also been prevented from informing the Magistrate about alleged ill-treatment. On this basis, the father challenged the legality of the arrest and the subsequent order remanding the boy to judicial custody.

The police disputed these allegations. Their explanation was that neither the petitioner nor his son had disclosed the correct date of birth at the time of arrest. They further submitted that the child had not raised any complaint before the Magistrate concerning his age, coercion or alleged ill-treatment. The authorities also explained that the Aadhaar material available to them was somewhat blurred, particularly in relation to the last digit of the year of birth. According to the police, this led them to understand that the boy had been born in 2006 rather than 2008.

The authorities therefore sought to justify the action taken on the basis of the information available to them at the relevant time. However, the High Court was not persuaded that the alleged lack of clarity in the document could justify the treatment of the child as an adult.

The Court observed that it was the responsibility of the police authorities to verify the exact date of birth with reference to the material available to them. It expressed particular concern over how the date of birth could have been regarded as unclear when the material produced before the High Court showed it sufficiently clearly. The Court also observed that the Judicial Officer passing the remand order was expected to pay appropriate attention to the issue of age.

The Court’s intervention was therefore founded not merely upon a technical defect in the remand proceedings but upon the jurisdictional consequences of treating a child as an adult. Once the boy’s actual date of birth was established as September 12, 2008, the ordinary procedure applicable to adult accused could not lawfully be applied to him.

The High Court consequently held that the remand order dated August 19, 2026, insofar as it concerned the minor boy, was illegal, unsustainable and without jurisdiction. The order was set aside and the child was directed to be released forthwith.

At the same time, the Court carefully clarified that the release did not amount to immunity from further legal action. The authorities were expressly permitted to proceed against the child in accordance with the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act. Thus, the judgment did not prevent investigation or other lawful proceedings; it only required the authorities to follow the special statutory procedure applicable to a child in conflict with law.

The Court also took a serious view of the manner in which the child had been placed in judicial custody. Finding the matter appropriate for imposition of costs, it directed the Station House Officer of Samisragudem Police Station, East Godavari District, to personally pay ₹10,000 to the A.P. High Court Legal Services Committee, Amaravati.

The Superintendent of Jail was further directed to take immediate steps to secure the release of the minor, who had been lodged in Central Prison pursuant to the impugned remand order.

The decision is significant because it reinforces that the Juvenile Justice Act is not merely a procedural alternative available to authorities at their discretion. Where a person is a child in law, the special statutory mechanism must be followed. The determination of age consequently assumes central importance at the earliest stage of the criminal process.

Arguments of the Parties:

The petitioner, Veligatla Venkata Narayana, approached the High Court on behalf of his minor son and challenged the legality of the arrest and remand. His primary contention was that the boy was a child within the meaning of the Juvenile Justice Act and had been below 18 years of age on both relevant dates.

The petitioner placed reliance upon the child’s date of birth as September 12, 2008. On the basis of that date, the petitioner contended that there could be no legal justification for treating the boy as an adult accused. The petitioner argued that the police had either ignored or failed to properly consider documentary material showing the child’s correct age.

According to the petitioner, the police had been furnished with the boy’s Aadhaar details, which contained his date of birth. Despite having access to that material, the authorities allegedly represented his age as 19 years before the Magistrate. The petitioner alleged that the relevant portion of the document had been removed or obscured and that this resulted in an incorrect representation of the child’s age.

The petitioner further alleged that the child had been coerced into remaining silent regarding his age. It was also alleged that he had been prevented from informing the Magistrate about the alleged ill-treatment. The petitioner therefore argued that the absence of a complaint before the Magistrate could not, in the circumstances, be treated as conclusive proof that the child had voluntarily accepted the age attributed to him by the police.

The petitioner emphasised the statutory scheme of the Juvenile Justice Act. A child in conflict with law is required to be dealt with through a special and child-friendly mechanism. The Juvenile Justice Board is the competent forum for dealing with such a child, and the ordinary procedure applicable to adult accused persons cannot simply be substituted for the statutory juvenile process.

The petitioner therefore contended that the regular Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to remand the minor as though he were an adult accused. The impugned remand order was consequently argued to be void and liable to be set aside.

The petitioner also urged that the question of age was not a minor procedural issue. It went directly to the jurisdiction of the authority dealing with the child and determined the legal framework under which the proceedings had to continue. If the child was below 18 years, the safeguards and procedures of the Juvenile Justice Act necessarily became applicable.

The respondents, represented by the Advocate General, resisted the writ petition and sought to justify the actions of the police and the remand proceedings. Their principal explanation concerned the information available to the investigating officials at the time of arrest.

The respondents contended that neither the petitioner nor his son had disclosed the correct date of birth when the boy was arrested. They therefore argued that the authorities did not deliberately misrepresent the child’s age but proceeded on the basis of the information available to them.

The police further submitted that the Aadhaar document received by them was not completely clear. In particular, according to the respondents, the last digit of the year of birth appeared blurred. This allegedly resulted in the authorities understanding the year of birth as 2006 rather than 2008.

The respondents also pointed out that no complaint regarding the boy’s age, coercion or alleged ill-treatment had been made before the Magistrate at the time of remand. Their position was that the absence of such a complaint undermined the subsequent allegation that the child had been prevented from disclosing his true age or had been subjected to coercion.

The respondents therefore sought to defend the remand order on the basis that the authorities had acted on the information available to them and that there had been no deliberate attempt to defeat the statutory protections available to juveniles.

However, the respondents’ position ultimately did not persuade the High Court. The Court considered that the police had an independent responsibility to ascertain the child’s exact age from the material available to them. The alleged lack of clarity in the document could not, in the Court’s view, justify overlooking a date of birth that was sufficiently apparent from the record.

The High Court also considered the responsibility of the Magistrate at the remand stage. Once the issue of age arises, the Court dealing with the accused is expected to exercise appropriate care because the determination of whether a person is a child has direct consequences for the jurisdiction and procedure applicable to the case.

Court’s Judgment:

The Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed the writ petition to the extent necessary to protect the minor from the illegal remand and set aside the order directing his judicial custody. The central finding of the Division Bench was that the boy’s date of birth was September 12, 2008 and, consequently, he was below 18 years of age at the relevant time.

The Court’s reasoning began with the material placed before it concerning the child’s date of birth. The Bench specifically noted that the documentary material produced along with the writ petition clearly indicated the year 2008. This became significant because the respondents had sought to explain their action by asserting that the document available to the police was blurred and that the final digit of the year of birth could not be properly read.

The Court was unconvinced by that explanation. It observed that while it was undoubtedly the duty of the police to verify the exact date of birth with reference to the material available to them, it was difficult to understand how the date of birth could have been considered unclear when it was clearly visible in the material produced before the High Court.

The Bench therefore placed responsibility upon the police authorities to exercise greater care before determining whether an accused was an adult or a child. The distinction is not merely administrative. A finding that a person is an adult places the person within the ordinary criminal justice system, whereas a finding that the person is a child triggers an entirely different statutory regime.

The Court also expressed concern regarding the role of the Judicial Officer at the remand stage. It observed that the learned Junior Civil Judge, acting as the relevant Magistrate, was also expected to bestow attention while passing the remand order.

This observation is important because the responsibility to protect statutory rights does not rest exclusively with the investigating agency. When a person is produced before a Magistrate, the judicial authority is expected to scrutinise the circumstances surrounding the arrest and remand, particularly where age determines the jurisdiction of the forum and the procedure to be followed.

The Juvenile Justice Act establishes a specialised framework for children in conflict with law. Its philosophy is fundamentally different from the ordinary punitive process applicable to adults. The legislation seeks to balance accountability with rehabilitation and social reintegration and recognises that children require a distinct legal response.

The Act defines a “child” as a person who has not completed eighteen years of age. Once a person falls within that definition, the statutory machinery applicable to a child in conflict with law becomes relevant. The child is required to be produced before the Juvenile Justice Board rather than being dealt with by a regular criminal court as an adult.

The High Court’s decision therefore reinforces the jurisdictional character of the juvenile justice framework. The issue was not simply whether the authorities had made an incorrect entry concerning the boy’s age. The incorrect determination had the consequence of placing him before a forum that was not competent to deal with him as an adult accused.

The Court expressly held that the remand order dated August 19, 2026, insofar as it related to the minor, was “illegal and unsustainable as also without jurisdiction.” The use of the expression “without jurisdiction” underscores the seriousness of the error. The problem was not merely an irregularity capable of being overlooked; the wrong determination of age resulted in the child being subjected to a legal process that did not apply to him.

The Court consequently set aside the remand order to the extent it concerned the petitioner’s son and directed that he be released forthwith.

The direction for immediate release was reinforced by a specific direction to the Superintendent of Jail. Since the minor had been lodged in Central Prison pursuant to the impugned remand order, the Court directed the jail authorities to take immediate steps to secure his release.

The Court nevertheless maintained an important distinction between release from illegal custody and immunity from proceedings. It expressly clarified that the order would not prevent the respondent authorities from taking action against the child in accordance with the Juvenile Justice Act.

This qualification ensured that the Court did not interfere with the legitimate investigative or legal powers of the authorities. The judgment was directed at the procedure adopted against the child, not at preventing lawful action concerning the alleged offence.

In other words, the child could still be dealt with under the law, but only through the statutory mechanism designed for children in conflict with law. The authorities were required to respect the special jurisdiction and safeguards under the Juvenile Justice Act.

This approach is consistent with the fundamental principle that statutory protections afforded to children cannot be defeated by an erroneous description of their age. The procedural framework under juvenile justice legislation is intended to ensure that children are treated differently because of their age and developmental status.

The High Court also took into account the explanation offered by the police concerning the Aadhaar document. Even assuming that the document received by the authorities was blurred to some extent, the Court indicated that the appropriate course was to verify the date of birth rather than proceed on an uncertain assumption that the accused was an adult.

The Court’s observation carries practical significance for investigating agencies. Whenever a question concerning age arises, particularly in cases where the accused may be below eighteen, the authorities are expected to verify the available documentary material carefully. An incorrect assumption can have serious consequences because it may result in a child being arrested, remanded and detained through the adult criminal justice system.

The Court’s criticism was also directed at the lack of adequate scrutiny at the remand stage. Judicial remand is not a mechanical formality. The Magistrate is expected to apply judicial mind before authorising detention. Where the person’s age determines the competent forum and statutory procedure, that question assumes particular importance.

The High Court’s judgment therefore places responsibility at both levels: the police must accurately ascertain and place the child’s age before the Court, while the judicial authority must independently examine the material before authorising custody.

The Court further found that the matter warranted imposition of costs. The Bench directed the Station House Officer of Samisragudem Police Station, East Godavari District, to personally pay ₹10,000 to the A.P. High Court Legal Services Committee, Amaravati.

The direction that the cost be paid personally by the SHO is significant. It demonstrates that the Court regarded the error as sufficiently serious to warrant individual accountability rather than merely directing the State to bear the financial consequence.

The amount was directed to be deposited within one week from receipt of the order. The direction also serves as a reminder that public authorities are expected to exercise particular care when dealing with children and matters affecting personal liberty.

The Court ultimately allowed the writ petition to the extent indicated in its order. The impugned remand order was set aside insofar as it concerned the minor boy, and his immediate release was ordered.

The judgment is particularly important in the context of personal liberty. Detention of a child under an adult criminal procedure can have consequences extending far beyond the period of custody itself. The Juvenile Justice Act therefore seeks to ensure that the response to alleged criminal conduct is proportionate to the child’s age and is directed towards rehabilitation rather than merely punishment.

The High Court’s intervention reinforces that these protections must operate from the earliest stage of the criminal process. The safeguards cannot be postponed until trial or invoked only after conviction. They become relevant from the moment the authorities apprehend a person who may be a child.

The ruling also highlights the importance of accurate age determination. In juvenile justice matters, age is not an incidental personal detail. It can determine the very forum before which the child must be produced, the manner in which the case is investigated, the nature of custody and the range of procedures that may lawfully be adopted.

The decision further makes clear that the burden of ensuring compliance with the juvenile justice framework cannot be shifted onto the child. A minor who may be unfamiliar with legal procedures cannot reasonably be expected to protect himself against an incorrect age determination by the police. The statutory scheme therefore places corresponding obligations upon investigating officers and judicial autorities.

The respondents’ submission that neither the child