Punjab and Haryana High Court admits PIL against imprisonment orders imposed on minors
The PIL in the high court highlighted illegal sentencing by the Juvenile Justice Boards in Punjab and Haryana.
A PIL before the Punjab and Haryana High Court alleges that Juvenile Justice Boards have been unlawfully imposing prison terms on minors, violating the rehabilitative spirit of the Juvenile Justice Act. The Punjab and Haryana High Court Monday admitted a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the practice of Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs) across the two states imposing prison terms on children in conflict with law, a move seen as a violation of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
The bench, comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry, also issued notices to the high court registrar, state governments, women and child development directorates, and the Union Ministry of Women and Child Development, with replies due in four weeks.
The petition, filed by Chandigarh-based Advocate Vineet Kumar Jakhar, exposes what he called a systemic failure in which JJBs in districts such as Sonipat, Ferozepur, Mansa, Fatehgarh Sahib, and Rohtak have routinely ordered rigorous or straightforward imprisonment for minors accused of offences ranging from theft to drug violations.
Jakhar, appearing in person, argued that such orders misuse criminal law terms like “sentence” and “detention” in a statute meant for rehabilitation, not punishment.
He cited the example of the Ferozepur board, which in 2023 directed a minor to spend five hours daily in a police station for two months, and said the order had no basis in law and breaches sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
He attached 19 such orders as evidence, showing sentences ranging from six months to three years, often without preparing the mandatory individual care plans required by a 2023 high court ruling in Ravinder versus State of Haryana.
The Juvenile Justice Act, Jakhar contented, limits options to care, counselling and placement in special homes for up to three years, focusing on reform through education and therapy.
“Special homes are not jails,” he argued, drawing on Supreme Court precedents that define imprisonment as a coercive penalty involving loss of liberty and, in rigorous cases, hard labour.
He traced the issue back to 1982 parliamentary debates criticising the jailing of minors, urging the court to declare all such orders null and void.
The bench rejected parts of the plea overlapping with the earlier Ravinder case but entertained the core demands: directing states to stop the practice, review past cases for transfers to special homes, and declare imprisonment orders illegal.
The next hearing is set for February 12, 2026.
Jakhar, who teaches law at universities in Rohtak and Faridabad and has organised child welfare seminars, said the petition stems from representing a minor sentenced to three years’ simple imprisonment.
After a single-judge bench in 2023 sent that case to a children’s court, his research uncovered the pattern. “To imprison a child under the guise of law is not just illegality, it is a moral failure,” he said.
Share
