Introduction
In the case of Pooja Gagan Jain versus State of Maharashtra¹, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court navigated the complex intersection of juvenile justice and public sentiment. The case at hand revolved around a tragic accident in Pune involving a minor, referred to as the Child in Conflict with Law (CCL), who, while driving a Porsche, caused the death of two motorcyclists. The public outcry that followed the incident underscored the societal demand for accountability and justice.

The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, prioritizes the rehabilitation and welfare of minors over punitive measures. The Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) in Pune initially granted bail to the CCL, adhering to these principles. Subsequently, the JJB ordered the CCL’s placement in an observation home, raising legal and ethical questions about the balance between the minor's welfare and public safety concerns.

This case highlights the significant discretionary powers of the JJB and the legal safeguards in place to protect minors. It also emphasizes the judiciary's role in interpreting the law in the best interest of children while addressing the evolving circumstances of each case. The Hon’ble Court’s decision to uphold the JJB's order and allow the habeas corpus petition reflects a careful consideration of legal norms, public sentiment, and the overarching goals of juvenile justice.

As society grapples with such incidents, this case serves as a crucial example of the legal system’s efforts to uphold the principles of juvenile justice, ensuring that the welfare and rehabilitation of minors remain paramount, even amidst intense public scrutiny.

However, following the bail order, new information emerged, revealing that the CCL was heavily intoxicated and lacked a valid driving license at the time of the accident. Additionally, the CCL's actions, captured in CCTV footage, showed him consuming alcohol for an extended period before the crash. An application under Section 104 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 was filed to amend the previous bail order, citing these new facts.

The JJB reviewed the case, considering the new evidence and the public outcry. The JJB decided that the CCL should be placed in an Observation Home for rehabilitation until 5th June 2024, emphasizing the need for psychological counselling and de-addiction programs. The board noted the CCL's troubled background, including substance abuse, and deemed it necessary for his rehabilitation and safety.

Subsequent applications extended the CCL's stay in the Observation Home until 25th June 2024, with ongoing counselling and de-addiction sessions. The CCL's paternal aunt, then filed a writ petition seeking his release and challenging the JJB's orders, alleging unlawful custody and arbitrary actions.

Issues at hand

1. Whether the JJB’s order to place the CCL in an observational home was illegal.
2. Whether a Writ of Habeus Corpus was maintainable.

Submissions of the Petitioner

1. On Detention of the CCL.
   The Counsel for the Petitioner asserted that according to the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, once bail is granted to a child, they cannot be detained in an Observation Home unless bail is revoked due to committing a more serious offense. The Counsel for the Petitioner relied on Section 6(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 and submitted that the CCL could only be kept in an observational home when he is not granted bail and once bail under Section 12 (1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 is granted, the same cannot be rescinded arbitrarily.
    
2. On Section 104 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
   The Counsel for the Petitioner criticized the JJB's use of Section 104 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, arguing it was intended for procedural amendments, not for altering bail conditions. He highlighted that the prosecution had not challenged the bail order through proper channels, emphasizing that the CCL should have been a free person once granted bail on May 19, 2024. He argued that the Board's order directing the CCL to the Observation Home under Section 104 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, was not a reviewable action but rather an illegal detention since bail remained valid.
    
3. Writ of Habeas Corpus:
   The Counsel for the Petitioner sought a Writ of Habeas Corpus, citing the Apex Court decision in Gautam Navlakha versus National Investigation Agency², which supports such petitions on grounds of lack of jurisdiction or illegal remand. He submitted that the Board's subsequent order was an illegal extension of custody beyond what was legally justifiable.

Submissions of the Respondent

1. On Detention of the CCL and applicability of Section 104 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
   The Counsel for the Respondent (State) argued that the order of the JJB under section 104 did not amount to cancelation of the bail granted to the CCL and the same remained intact. He claimed that the powers under Section 104 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 were utilised by the JJB to ensure the safety and well-being of the CCL post bail being granted in light of the new facts at hand.
    
2. On Maintainability of a Writ:
   The Counsel for the Respondent relying on the Bombay High Court decision in Naresh Goyal versus Directorate of Enforcement and Ors.³ wherein it was held that when there was no challenge to the remand order, and when the remand order was passed by a competent court, a Writ of Habeas Corpus cannot be entertained. He further relied on the decision in V. Senthil Balaji v The State⁴, wherein it was held that no Writ of Habeas Corpus would lie and any plea of illegal arrest ought to have been made before the Magistrate orders judicial custody as the same is a lawful order from a court of competent jurisdiction.

Held

On whether the actions of the JJB is permissible under the scheme of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.

Purpose of the act
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court explored the purpose of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 qua the safety and well-being of the CCL. The Hon’ble Court held that the Act is “an enactment relating to children alleged and found to be in conflict with law and children in need of care and protection by catering to their basic needs through proper care, protection, development, treatment, social re-integration, by adopting a child friendly approach in the adjudication and disposal of the matters in the best interest of children and for their rehabilitation through the processes provided in form of institutions and bodies established.” The Court further stated that the Act is in conformity with Article 39 (e) and (f) of the Constitution of India which makes the state liable for protection of basic human rights.

The Hon’ble Court emphasized the definition of child care and place of safety relying on section 2 (21) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 which states that a child care institution means Children Home, open shelter, observation home, special home, place of safety, Specialized Adoption Agency, any fit facility recognised under the Act for providing care and protection to children, who are in need of such services. Further 'Place of safety' is also defined in the Act to mean any place or institution, not being a police lockup or jail, established separately or attached to an observation home or a special home, as the case may be, to receive and take care of the children alleged or found to be in conflict with law, by an order of the Board, both during inquiry and ongoing rehabilitation on being found guilty, for a period and the purpose as specified in the order.

The Court finally reiterated the general principles enshrined in Section 3 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 as

• Principle of repatriation and restoration: Children in the juvenile justice system have the right to be reunited with their families and restored to their socio-economic and cultural status unless it is not in their best interest.
• Principle of institutionalization as a last resort: Institutional care should be used only after a reasonable inquiry.
• Right to fair treatment: Children have the right to fair hearing, rule against bias, and the right to review by all judicial bodies under the Act.

The Court further reiterated the procedural safe guards enshrined under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 wherein Section 10 mandates that children alleged to be in conflict with the law must be produced before the Juvenile Justice Board within 24 hours and must not be placed in police lockups or jails. Section 12 provides for bail to children alleged to have committed offenses, stating that they must be released on bail unless it is likely to bring them into association with criminals, expose them to danger, or defeat the ends of justice. If bail is denied, the child must be placed in an observation home or a place of safety.

On the application of section 104 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
As per Section 104 the JJB had the authority to alter the person or place where the CCL’s custody may be given pending trial.

The Hon’ble Court noted that the purpose of the act was to provide safety to the children and segregate them and to avoid their incarceration with adults. The Court further emphasized that as per the general principles there is a presumption of innocence and no malafide intent. Therefore Section 12 of the Juvenile Protection Act, 2015 has mandatory bail provisions for a CCL. The Court therefore held that only if bail cannot be granted to the CCL, the JJB may exercise its power to place the CCL in an Observation Home.

The Court held that Section 104 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 was to be read along with the purpose and scope enshrined in the rest of the Act. The Court therefore held that “the scope of amendment is, therefore, limited to varying the institution or a person under whose care a child is placed, which necessarily do not involve deprivation of his liberty, if the child is on bail, where he is temporarily released, awaiting the outcome of trial, subject to the condition of pledging some amount to guarantee his appearance in the Court or subject to such other conditions, which the Court may deem fit to impose. The underlying principle used for releasing an accused on bail in modern legal system is to secure his freedom.”

The Court therefore held that in the facts of the case at hand the decision of the Board to remand the CCL to an Observation Home by invoking Section 104 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, contradicted the purpose for which he was released on bail and therefore is illegal, as the CCL was a free person subject to conditions in the bail order. The court therefore held that the JJB had erred in assuming the power to detain the CCL and had contradicted its own orders as there was no question of confining a free child who was already on bail.

On whether the writ of Habeas Corpus is maintainable.
The Court relied on the decision in Gautam Navlakha and the case of SFIO vs. Rahul Modi⁵ wherein it was held that :

"If the remand is absolutely illegal or the remand is afflicted with the vice of lack of jurisdiction, a Habeas Corpus petition would indeed lie. Equally, if an order of remand is passed in an absolutely mechanical manner, a person affected can seek the remedy of Habeas Corpus. Barring such situations, Habeas Corpus petition will not lie."

The Hon’ble Court in the matter at hand held that both the conditions are clearly attracted as the remand of the CCL by three distinct orders of the JJB was illegal as the impugned orders were passed without jurisdiction and in an absolutely mechanical manner, with the most pivotal fact being that the CCL was remanded despite being released on bail and the same not standing cancelled.

Conclusion
The Hon’ble Court concluded by criticizing the knee jerk reaction of the JJB and the investigating authorities in this case and the judgement of the Accused based on actions rather than age. The Hon’ble Court summarised a latin phrase being Fiat Justitia Ruat Caelum, a latin phrase, which connotes, "Let justice be done though the heavens fall", which clearly convey a principle in law, that justice must be realized regardless of consequences and just decisions may be made at whatever cost it comes.

The Court also concluded by stating that “Law is an objective thing and there it stands, irrespective of whether it entails any hardship. Provisions of law must be applied equally to all and shall definitely treat everyone equally, as the dominant approach of doctrine of equality is equal justice, which would encompass equal protection of law. The administration of law should not degenerate into its choicest application in arduous and wary situations and it impermissible to have its inconsistent application, dependent upon who stands before us, and in what situation, justice is pleaded.”

By - Parshva Shah