Juvenile Justice Act Overrides All Other Laws In Case Of Child In Conflict With Law: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act) overrides all other laws in case of a child in conflict with law.

Perusing various provisions of the JJ Act, the bench of Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Sandeep Jain held,

“A reading of the aforesaid provisions shows that the Act, 2015 has an overriding effect over any other law for the time being in force in all matters concerning the child in conflict with law especially in matters regarding apprehension, detention, prosecution or imprisonment of the child in conflict with law.”

Petitioner no.1, accused, along with his elder brother and mother had allegedly killed the eldest brother. All accused were arrested and detained in Naini Central Jail since 2017. During Trial, petitioner no.1 claimed his date of birth to be 13.12.2002. When the Principal of his school was summoned, he stated that on the date of the offence, petitioner was 14 years, 3 months and 19 days old.

Thereafter, the matter was referred to the Juvenile Justice Board which held the petitioner to be 14 years, 3 months and 19 days old on the date of the offence. Though the order was supplied to the Trial Court, the petitioner was not released from detention. Accordingly, petitioner no.2, claiming to be a social worker approached the High Court seeking petitioner no.1's release.

The preliminary question before the Court was whether it could release the accused by issuing a Writ of Habeas Corpus when he was detained by a judicial order.

The Court referred to Manubhai Ratilal Patel Through Ushaben vs. State of Gujarat & Others, where the Supreme Court had held that a habeas corpus petition cannot be generally entertained except when the Court is satisfied that the order under challenge suffers from the vice of lack of jurisdiction or absolute illegality.

Further, reliance was placed on Kanu Sanyal vs. District Magistrate, Darjeeling & Others, where the Apex Court had held that legality of the detention at the initial stage is not to be seen, but whether detention is legal at the time of filing of the Habeas Corpus petition.

Accordingly, the Court held that “in a Habeas Corpus petition, the validity of the present detention can be examined and a writ would be issued even where the initial detention was legal and valid but the present detention was found to be illegal.”

The Court examined Section 9(4) of the JJ Act which provides that if required, such accused must be placed in protective custody while determination regarding age is being made. Section 10 provides that a child alleged to be in conflict with law cannot be placed in a police lockup or lodged in a jail under any circumstances.

It held since the claim of being a child was made after framing of charges, it may not have been illegal at the initial stage, but after he had made the claim, he ought to have been moved to a protective custody under Section 9(4) of the JJ Act.

The Court observed that Section 1(4) of the JJ Act starts with a non-obstante clause excluding all other laws in force from cases concerning child in conflict with law and especially apprehension, detention, prosecution, penalty or imprisonment of children in conflict with law.

Perusing other provisions of the Act, the Court held that JJ Act will override all other laws when it comes to a child in conflict with law as defined under Section 2(13) of the Act.

“No waiver of the rights of the child in conflict with law as provided under the Act, 2015 is permissible and any non-exercise of fundamental right shall not amount to waiver.”

The Court rejected the contention of the State that the petitioner was at liberty to seek bail under ordinary criminal law. It held that a child in conflict with law could not be placed before a Trial Court for criminal trial and could seek bail only under Section 12 of the JJ Act before the Board.

Since the accused-petitioner had not been produced before the Board, the Court held that he could not have applied for bail and set him at liberty with a direction to respondent to produce him before the Trial Court for age determination. The Trial Court was at liberty to keep the accused in protective custody if required and in case it was held that the petitioner was a child at the time of commission of offence, forward him to the Board for appropriate action.

Case Title: Pawan Kumar (Corpus) And Another v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others [HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 497 of 2025]

Click Here To Read/Download Order