Juvenile offences cannot form the basis for subjective satisfaction in passing a preventive detention order.

The petitioner, mother of the detenue (Abhicyrill @ Abhi), challenged a detention order dated 11.12.2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Kolar, 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 ("1985 Act")

The detention was based on ten criminal cases registered against the 19-year-old detenue between 2023 and 2025

The petitioner argued that several of these offences occurred when the detenue was a juvenile (under 18 years), and thus, pursuant to Section 24 of the JJ Act, they could not form the basis for a detention order

1. Whether criminal offences committed by a person while they were a juvenile (under 18 years of age) can be relied upon to form the subjective satisfaction required for a preventive detention order under the 1985 Act.

Section 24 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 ("JJ Act"), which stipulates that a child who has committed an offence shall not suffer any disqualification attached to a conviction, notwithstanding any other law

Section 2(12) of the JJ Act, defining a "child" as a person who has not completed 18 years of age

The JJ Act is a beneficial legislation enacted under Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India to protect the human rights of children in alignment with international conventions

The only exception to the removal of disqualification is under Section 19 of the JJ Act, where a child above 16 years is tried as an adult for a heinous offence

The Court observed that the detenue was 19 years old at the time of the detention order, but many of the ten offences cited by the State—specifically those from 2023 and early 2024—were committed when the detenue was below 18 years of age

The Court reasoned that the legislative intent of Section 24 of the JJ Act is to ensure that juvenile lapses do not result in lifelong legal disqualifications

Since the detenue was not tried as an adult for heinous offences under the specific exceptions of the JJ Act, his juvenile record was legally protected from being used against him

The Court concluded that the inclusion of these juvenile offences in the grounds for detention vitiated the detaining authority's "subjective satisfaction," as it directly contravened the statutory protections afforded to minors

The Court answered the issue in the negative, quashed the detention order dated 11.12.2025, and ordered the immediate release of the detenue from Central Prison, Bellary, provided he was not required in any other case