Section 31 Juvenile Justice Act | Mandatory Production Before Child Welfare Committee for Minor Protection from Forced Marriage: Punjab & Haryana HC

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has reaffirmed its commitment to protecting minors under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 by directing law enforcement to produce a 17-year-old girl before the Child Welfare Committee. The judgment underscores the state's obligation to safeguard minors from threats, including forced marriage, while ensuring compliance with statutory procedures for their care and protection.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioners, Gagandeep Singh (petitioner No.1) and a minor girl (petitioner No.2, aged 17½ years), sought protection under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India from private respondents who allegedly threatened them with dire consequences. Petitioner No.2 fled her parental home after being confined and pressured into an unwanted marriage. Petitioner No.1, acting as her next friend, filed this writ petition seeking state intervention.

Key Facts

• Petitioner No.2’s date of birth: 11.10.2008 (Annexure P-2), making her a minor under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.
• Petitioner No.1’s date of birth: 18.08.2003 (Annexure P-1).
• Representation dated 02.04.2026: Filed before respondent No.2 (Commissioner of Police, District Amritsar) seeking protection (Annexure P-3), but no action was taken.
• Threats: Private respondents allegedly threatened the petitioners with physical harm if petitioner No.2 did not marry a boy of their choice.

Procedural History

• CRWP-4212-2026: Writ petition filed before the Punjab & Haryana High Court seeking protection and directions to respondent No.2.
• 10.04.2026: Notice of motion issued to respondents No.1 to 3.
• Precedent relied upon: P...... Minor Through Vikram v. State of Haryana and another (CRWP-2139-2022 (O&M), decided on 28.03.2022), which laid down directions for the protection of minors under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015.

Relief Sought

The petitioners sought:

1. Directions to respondent No.2 to consider and dispose of their representation dated 02.04.2026 (Annexure P-3) expeditiously.
2. Protection from threats to their life and liberty.
3. Compliance with the directions issued in P...... Minor Through Vikram v. State of Haryana and another (supra).

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether the High Court could issue directions to law enforcement and the Child Welfare Committee under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 to protect a minor from threats of forced marriage and ensure her well-being in accordance with statutory procedures.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioners

• Petitioner No.2, being a minor, fell within the definition of a child in need of care and protection under Section 2(14)(vii) and (xii) of the JJ Act, 2015.
• The private respondents’ actions amounted to illegal confinement and coercion, violating petitioner No.2’s right to liberty and dignity.
• Reliance was placed on the judgment in P...... Minor Through Vikram v. State of Haryana and another (supra), which mandated state intervention in similar cases.

For the Respondents

• The State, represented by Mr. Amit Shukla, DAG Punjab, accepted notice and did not contest the petitioners’ claims. No counter-arguments were presented.

The Court's Analysis

The Court relied on the precedent set in P...... Minor Through Vikram v. State of Haryana and another (supra), which established a framework for protecting minors under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. The judgment emphasized the following legal principles:

1. Definition of Child in Need of Care and Protection: The Court noted that petitioner No.2 fell within the ambit of Section 2(14)(vii) and (xii) of the JJ Act, 2015, which defines a child in need of care and protection as one who is:

   • At risk of marriage before attaining the age of majority (Section 2(14)(vii)).
   • Victim of any armed conflict, civil unrest, or natural disaster (Section 2(14)(xii)), though this was not directly applicable here.

2. Role of Child Welfare Police Officer: The Court directed the Senior Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of Police to depute a Child Welfare Police Officer to produce the minor before the Child Welfare Committee within one week. This aligns with Section 36 of the JJ Act, 2015, which mandates an inquiry into the minor’s circumstances.

3. Inquiry and Orders by Child Welfare Committee: The Child Welfare Committee was directed to conduct an inquiry under Section 36 and pass appropriate orders under Section 37 of the JJ Act, 2015. The Committee was tasked with:

   • Ensuring the minor’s safety and well-being.
   • Taking interim decisions regarding her custody and placement during the pendency of the inquiry.
   • Associating all stakeholders to serve the objectives of the JJ Act.

4. Protection from Threats: The Court directed the SSP/SP to take appropriate steps to protect the minor and her next friend from physical harm, ensuring compliance with the law.

5. Compliance Timeline: The petitioners were directed to appear before the Commissioner of Police, District Amritsar, within 10 days, failing which the Child Welfare Police Officer would produce the minor before the Child Welfare Committee within one week.

"The minor in all these cases happen to fall within the definition of child in need of care and protection as provided under section 2(14)(vii)(xii) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The Senior Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of Police of the respective districts shall depute a Child Welfare Police Officer to produce the minor/child before the Committee constituted under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015."

The Verdict

The Court disposed of the petition in terms of the judgment dated 28.03.2022 in P...... Minor Through Vikram v. State of Haryana and another (supra). The key directions issued were:

1. The petitioners must appear before respondent No.2 (Commissioner of Police, District Amritsar) within 10 days.
2. Respondent No.2 is directed to depute a Child Welfare Police Officer to produce petitioner No.2 (the minor) before the Child Welfare Committee within one week of their appearance.
3. Respondent No.2 must consider the petitioners’ representation dated 02.04.2026 and grant necessary protection if threats to their life and liberty are established.
4. The Child Welfare Committee must conduct an inquiry under Section 36 and pass orders under Section 37 of the JJ Act, 2015, ensuring the minor’s safety and well-being.
5. If any criminal case is pending against the petitioners, this order does not hinder the investigating agency from proceeding according to law.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Child Welfare Committee’s Role Is Non-Negotiable

• The judgment reinforces that minors facing threats, including forced marriage, must be produced before the Child Welfare Committee for inquiry and protection.
• Practitioners should emphasize Section 2(14)(vii) of the JJ Act, 2015, which explicitly includes minors at risk of marriage before attaining majority as children in need of care and protection.

State’s Obligation to Protect Minors

• The Court’s directions place a mandatory duty on law enforcement (SSP/SP) to intervene and ensure the minor’s safety.
• Child Welfare Police Officers must be deputed promptly to produce the minor before the Child Welfare Committee, failing which contempt proceedings may lie.

Procedural Safeguards for Minors

• The Child Welfare Committee must conduct a Section 36 inquiry and pass orders under Section 37, including interim custody arrangements.
• Key takeaways for practitioners:
  • File representations before the Commissioner of Police seeking protection, as the Court directed expeditious consideration.
  • Ensure compliance with the 10-day appearance timeline to avoid coercive action by the Child Welfare Police Officer.
  • Argue for interim protection during the pendency of the inquiry, as the Court emphasized the minor’s safety as a priority.