A Bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman observed that there is "a complete apathy which is shown by the Police Administration in inculcating the sense of responsibility while treating the child, whether in conflict with law or otherwise".

The bench was essentially dealing with a habeas petition filed by Sarat Majhi, who alleged that his minor child was called to a police station in Bhadrak district and detained for several hours under the pretext of an investigation.

Perusing the case records, the Court noted reports revealing that the investigating officer put several questions to the juvenile and that there did "not appear that there is any child-friendly corner established at the said police station".

On May 4, 2026, when the matter first came up, the High Court took serious note of the lack of proper facilities for juveniles in the concerned Police Station. The bench observed thus:

"Even if a juvenile who is a child in conflict with law does not deserve to be treated like the others, nor can the authorities undermine the legislative mandate of the juvenile justice law prevalent in the country".

The Court subsequently directed the Superintendent of Police (SP), Bhadrak, to personally appear before the Court to explain whether child-friendly corners existed within his jurisdiction.

During the next hearing on May 18, 2026, the SP of Bhadrak filed an affidavit disclosing that the concerned Police Station has a child-friendly corner with all necessary amenities and facilities.

The police claimed that all steps required under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, had been taken.

However, the petitioner contested this claim by submitting that the child was intentionally taken to a place not covered under the CCTV and was mercilessly beaten and physically assaulted.

He also relied on a discharge certificate issued by the Medical Officer of the District Headquarter Hospital, Bhadrak.

Crucially, the Court reviewed the police-submitted instructions and noted a 'presumption' that the IIC herself investigated and interrogated the child, rather than the designated Special Juvenile Police Officer.

In view of this procedural lapse and the competing claims, the bench directed the SP to produce the exact CCTV footage of November 2, 2025, between 8 PM and 12 Midnight.

On June 29, 2026, the bench perused excerpts of the CCTV footage forwarded by the state counsel. The Court found that while the footage and medical documents did not explicitly corroborate the allegations of physical assault or establish a clear case of illegal detention, they did reveal glaring systemic failures and non-compliance.

The Court observed:

"We perused the excerpts of the CCTV footage...and after perusal thereof, we noticed certain discrepancies, violations and non-adherence of the statutory provisions... However, it raises a serious concern when in pursuit of determining the cause, we noticed that the said child was treated differently than what is warranted under the Odisha Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2018 and the parent Act."

The bench added that there was a complete apathy which was shown by the Police Administration in inculcating the sense of responsibility while treating the child, whether in conflict with law or otherwise.

Recognizing that the problem extends far beyond a single isolated incident, the bench decided to convert the plea into a regular Public Interest Litigation, so as to deal with the cases where there has been rampant violation and/or implementation of various provisions of the Act concerning children.

Consequently, the Registry was directed to register a separate Public Interest Litigation and the documents and records pertaining to the instant writ petition be included therein.