A Writ of Habeas Corpus is not maintainable against an order of detention passed by a competent statutory authority like the Child Welfare Committee under the Juvenile Justice Act, as such detention is authorized by law and not illegal.

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA

AND

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes

3. Whether Her Ladyship wishes to see the fair copy of the Judgment? : No

_________________________________

MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J

MB,J & GPK,J

W.P.No.26685 of 2025

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA

AND

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR

W.P.No.26685 OF 2025

Ms.Vasudha Nagaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Mr.Swaroop Oorilla, learned Special Government Pleader representing the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent Nos.1-6.

Mr.L.Ravi Chander, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.7.

ORDER: (Per The Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)

1. The petitioner seeks a Writ of Habeas Corpus declaring the action of the State respondents in illegally detaining the alleged detenues in the respondent No.6/State Home and a direction to the State Home to produce the alleged detenues in the Court and to set the detenues free.

2. The petitioner claims to be a close friend of the detenues and claims to know the detenues for seven years having lived with them in the Child Care Institution, Prajwala (an organization registered under Andhra Pradesh (Telangana) Area Public Societies Registration Act) (‘Prajwala’) and the State Home. The detenues are said to be adults (19 years old).

3. The petitioner, Kamsani Anjali, was released from the respondent No.6/State Home pursuant to an order dated 13.08.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.23118 of 2025. The petitioner claims that the detenues “begged” the petitioner for their release and requested the petitioner to engage a lawyer to take up their case.

4. The respondent Nos.1 to 6 are the State respondents. Prajwala is the respondent No.7.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the detenues are presently in illegal detention in the respondent No.6/State Home. Counsel submits that both the detenues are adults and the State does not have any right to keep them in the State Home against their wishes. Counsel submits that the detenues are not allowed to lead an independent life or engage counsel to represent their case and hence intend to return to their respective families.

6. Counsel submits that the detenues have been detained without any legal sanction in a State Home which is contrary to The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (‘the JJ Act’). It is also submitted that the respondent No.7/Prajwala lacks any authority to make any submissions since it is not the Detaining Authority. Counsel places primacy on the wish of the detenues which is to be reunited with their families.

7. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 6/State places several documents to show that the release of the detenues would not be in their best interest since both the detenues were rescued on 17.08.2018 by the Yadagirigutta Police as part of human trafficking rescue operation and were victims of human trafficking. It is stated that the Child Welfare Committee (‘CWC’), Nalgonda transferred the case of the detenues (case bearing No.407/2019, da