Juvenile Offences Cannot Support Preventive Detention

The Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru quashed a preventive detention order after finding that the authority had relied on offences committed by the detenue before he attained the age of 18. The petition was heard by Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju in WPHC No. 35 of 2026, decided on 29 April 2026.

The detenue was stated to be 19 years old on the date of the detention order, 11 December 2025. The State defended the order under the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video or Audio Pirates Act, 1985, relying on ten criminal cases and asserting that he had been habitually involved in serious and anti-social activities.

The petitioner’s central submission was narrower and more fundamental. Several of the offences taken into account for the detention order were committed when the detenue was still a juvenile. The petitioner argued that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, particularly Section 24, bars the use of such offences to impose disqualifications or adverse consequences.

The Court examined the dates of the offences relied upon for detention. It noted that the offences cited included incidents from 2023, 2024 and 2025, and that at least some of them were admittedly committed when the detenue had not completed 18 years of age. The Court also noted that these were not cases where he had been tried as an adult for heinous offences.

The Court referred to Section 2(12) of the Juvenile Justice Act, which defines a child as a person who has not completed 18 years of age, and to Section 24, which is intended to ensure that a child who has committed an offence does not suffer disqualification on account of that conduct, except in the limited situation where a child is tried as an adult under Section 19.

On that reasoning, the Court held that the very fact that juvenile offences were taken into consideration for arriving at the subjective satisfaction for preventive detention vitiated the order. The Court said this would go against the purpose of the Juvenile Justice Act and Section 24.

The detention order was set aside, and the detenue was directed to be enlarged and set at liberty, subject to any other pending case requiring his detention. The Registry was directed to communicate the operative portion to the Superintendent of Central Prison, Bellary, immediately.

Practical takeaway: preventive detention cannot rest on offences committed as a juvenile, unless the statutory juvenile framework permits such use in the limited manner recognized by law.