No Matter What SC Says, Police Act On Their Own Whims: Allahabad High Court Orally Slams Cop For Ignoring 'Satender Antil' Verdict

A bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Divesh Chandra Samant made the oral observations while hearing a matter concerning the illegal detention of a juvenile who was sent to jail on allegations of committing theft.

Previously, on June 4, the Court had ordered the immediate release of the minor, calling his detention prima facie 'illegal'.

While doing so, the bench had summoned the arresting cops and sought a personal affidavit from the concerned Judicial Magistrate seeking his explanation for approving the judicial custody without verifying the juvenile's age and in an "absolutely mechanical" manner.

During the hearing, the division bench had expressed shock that the Cops and the Magistrate had completely overlooked the mandates of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and the Supreme Court's dictum in the Satender Antil case.

For context, the Court had previously noted that apart from overlooking the age of the juvenile, who was below 17 years at the time of lodging of the FIR, the Magistrate also overlooked the fact that the offences [Sections 303 (3) BNS & 317 BNSS] carried a maximum punishment of 3 and 5 years, respectively.

It may be noted that serving of notice under Section 35(3) BNSS is mandatory by the police to accused persons alleged to have committed an offence punishable with up to seven years of imprisonment.

Now today, when the State counsel attempted to defend the Investigating Officer's (IO) decision to arrest the juvenile on May 2, 2026, by claiming that the accused was 'absconding' and “not cooperating in the investigation”, the bench immediately interjected.

The Court questioned how the IO could conclude “non-cooperation” on the very day of the arrest without ever issuing a prior notice asking the accused to join the probe.

Taking strong exception to the persistent disregard of the Supreme Court's directives on the issue, the bench orally observed thus:

"No matter what the Supreme Court does, understand this in one line, even after the Supreme Court has delivered 4-5 judgments ranging from Arnesh Kumar to Satendra Antil, and said so much about protection, police officers have nothing to do with reading and studying. They will do exactly as they please. What do they care about laws and regulations? They are simply not made for laws and regulations!", the bench orally remarked.

The bench further warned the IO concerned, who was present in the court, that he was liable to face a departmental inquiry and punishment for this severe lapse, in strict accordance with the Satender Antil (2022) judgment.

Furthermore, the bench also took strong note of the personal affidavit filed by the ACJM who had granted the initial remand.

Reading from the ACJM's affidavit, Advocate Skand Bajpai, appearing for the petitioner, pointed out that the judicial officer had justified sending the accused, a juvenile, to judicial custody on the ground that “custodial interrogation was genuinely required”.

It was argued that this reflected a total non-application of judicial mind, rendering the officer “unfit to be a member of the judicial fraternity”.

It was also submitted that the State authorities had advance notice of the present petition, which included the school Transfer Certificate (TC) showing the petitioner to be a Juvenile. Despite this, the police still sought his remand by deliberately concealing the TC and the crucial fact of his juvenility from the Magistrate.

At this point, the Court noted that Magistrates often become "resource-dependent" on whatever documents the police present, thereby failing to apply an independent judicial mind.

However, the High Court stressed that had the Magistrate simply verified the age or carefully perused the case diary, the minor could never have been sent to judicial custody.

Concluding the hearing, the High Court sought comprehensive replies and listed the matter for further hearing on July 16, 2026.

The bench clarified that, since the affidavits filed did not contain genuine, unconditional apologies and instead attempted to stubbornly justify the illegalities, the Court would pass appropriate and strict orders.