‘Can’t treat child as threat’: Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court slams detention of teen

Justice M A Chowdhary said that the grounds of detention did not specify the particular activities; rather, vague and general statements were made.

The order added that a perusal of the detention order reveals no reference to the age of the petitioner, no consideration of the applicability of the Juvenile Justice Act, but only a mechanical reproduction of the police dossier.

Justice Chowdhary noted that the failure to consider a vital and relevant factor, i.e., the juvenility of the petitioner on the date of the alleged activities, renders the order vitiated on account of non-application of mind.

‘Detaintion order fails test of legality, and proportionality: Order

• It is evident that the detention order in the present case is substantially founded upon the FIR of the year 2023 and allegations about the period when the detenue was a juvenile.
• It is well settled that subjective satisfaction must be based on complete and relevant material, failing which the order cannot be sustained.
• Another limb of the argument is with regard to preventive detention, which is an exception to personal liberty and must be strictly construed.
• In the present case, the detainee could have been dealt with under the Juvenile Justice framework; however, the detaining authority has shown no compelling necessity to bypass such a mechanism.
• The detention order, thus, fails the test of reasonableness, legality, and proportionality.
• Besides his involvement in the case FIR registered in the year 2023, the detainee has been alleged to have worked as an on-ground worker providing logistic support to the killed terrorists, Riyaz
• Ahmad Dar and Rayees Ahmad Dar, residents of Larve Pulwama, subversive activities, motivating youth of the areas to join the terrorist ranks, and are closely associated with active terrorists.
• The grounds of detention, however, did not specify the particular activities, but vague and general statements have been made.

Court’s findings

• It is not in dispute that the impugned detention order relies upon the case of the year 2023 registered against the detenue, the allegations of indulging himself in subversive activities, and the police dossier recommending preventive detention of the petitioner.
• The petitioner has placed on record the Secondary School Examination Certificate issued by the Jammu and Kashmir Board of School Education, indicating the date of birth of the petitioner as April 2007.
• The said document has not been rebutted by the respondents. Rather, it is also the case of the respondents that a detainee as a juvenile was involved in the case in the year 2023.
• The grounds of detention have indicated the age of the detainee as 18 years and 19 days as on the date of his detention under the Public Safety Act i.e., April, 2025, which means that on the date of his alleged involvement in the case registered in the year 2023, he was of the age of 16 years or so, as such, he was a juvenile on the day of occurrence.

• Moreover, he was detained in a juvenile home and tried by a juvenile board.
• The next question is whether alleged activities committed during juvenility by the detainee can be relied upon to justify his preventive detention.
• Admittedly, the petitioner was a juvenile when he was arrested in the case FIR and was later on released on bail after spending fifteen months in the juvenile home.

Case of detention of minor

The petitioner, now 18, challenged the detention order passed by the District Magistrate of Pulwama on April 30, 2025. The detention was primarily founded on an FIR from 2023 involving allegations of anti-national activities and the killing of a civilian.

The principal ground of challenge is that the detainee was a juvenile on the date of the alleged activities as well as on the date of registration of the FIR, based on which the detention order was passed, rendering the order legally unsustainable.

The petitioner produced a secondary school examination certificate showing his date of birth as April 7, 2007, confirming he was approximately 16 years old at the time of the alleged 2023 occurrences.

Consequently, he had been processed through the juvenile justice framework and spent 15 months in a juvenile home before being released on bail in early 2025.

Petitioner’s case

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Shheryar submitted that the petitioner was below 18 years on the relevant date and, thus, governed by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

He submitted that the detaining authority has failed to consider this crucial aspect; that the petitioner has been detained under the Public Safety Act on false and flimsy grounds without any justification.

He further raised the plea of vagueness in the grounds of detention. It is being stated that the allegations leveled in the grounds of detention relate to the year 2023, and those activities have no proximity with the present time for the purpose of preventive detention unless any fresh activity is not attributed to the petitioner.