Rapped by the Punjab and Haryana High Court for “colonial-era policing” and registering serious criminal cases against youngsters on the basis of unverified “secret information”, the Punjab Police have directed that “coercive action” against youth with clean antecedents would be taken only on the basis of clear and unambiguous evidence.The police have also made it clear that their identity would ordinarily not be disclosed to the media. Besides this, their educational institutions and employers would also not be informed of the investigation unless necessary.In a significant child-and youth-sensitive shift, the police have, in fact, directed that young individuals — particularly in the 18-20 age group — will be protected from public exposure, institutional fallout and academic disruption during investigation.The circular dated April 3 – laying down 17 comprehensive operational guidelines for field officers to create a structured protocol to ensure that the investigation process does not itself become punitive for first-time young suspects – was placed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court during the hearing of a criminal matter.  Among the 17 “commandments” are explicit safeguards – “the identity of such individuals shall not be disclosed to the media except where legally required,” and educational institutions or employers “shall not be informed unless required by law or under specific court directions.”The circular goes a step further to ring-fence their digital and academic lives. Among other things, it says “seizure of personal electronic devices shall be restricted to necessary data extraction,” with a direction for prompt return “to avoid disruption of academic or professional activities.” It also emphasizes that academic continuity must be preserved by directing that “the IO shall ensure that academic continuity is not unnecessarily disrupted”. Additionally, the appearances at police stations “shall be scheduled at reasonable intervals”, thereby acknowledging the real-world impact of investigation on classes, examinations and early careers.“Custodial interrogation is necessitated to ascertain the nature and gravity of allegations against such individual. If such individual cooperates with the investigation and evidence is documented, custodial interrogation may be deemed unnecessary. Reasons should be recorded justifying necessity of custodial interrogation,” it says.The circular directs that coercive action should be taken only on the basis of “clear and unambiguous evidence available on record” and strictly in accordance with the principles laid down in the case of “Arnesh Kumar versus State of Bihar”. The Supreme Court judgment, referred to, holds that “police cannot arrest simply because an offence is cognizable”. It also mandates that the Investigating Officer should justify the necessity of any arrest by recording reasons, particularly in cases punishable with imprisonment up to seven years, and encourages the use of statutory notice procedures noting that “if a person complies with the notice to appear, arrest is generally deemed unnecessary”.The circular also reinforces evidentiary rigour, clarifying that no individual should be nominated as an accused solely on the basis of a co-accused’s disclosure statement without independent corroboration, observing that such statements “in absence of any corroborative evidence is a weak type of evidence.” Officers have also been directed to make efforts to collect material evidence linking the individual to main or other co-accused, including mobile or WhatsApp communications, location data at the time of the alleged offence, or any other corroborative material. Verification and documentation of absence of criminal antecedents has also been made mandatory before any arrest, search, or seizure.To ensure fairness and accountability, all such cases will be subject to periodic supervisory review by heads of field units. The circular specifies that where, upon review, evidence remains insufficient, “appropriate steps should be taken for deletion of name or closure of the case, without delay”. Case diaries will explicitly reflect “due consideration of age, background, and absence of antecedents”, and any alleged non-cooperation must be documented before taking coercive measures.The instructions were placed before the high court after Justice Sanjay Vashisth voiced concern that involvement of young boys in criminal cases was leading to “unwarranted criminal prosecution” and the possible “destruction of their future”. The circular operationalizes the concern by embedding proportionality, dignity, and procedural fairness into day-to-day policing.What it meansThe measures seek to prevent the process itself from becoming punishment: no naming-and-shaming, no automatic intimation to colleges or workplaces, no prolonged confiscation of phones or laptops that double up as study tools, and no routine summoning that derails academic schedules. The emphasis is clear — investigate, but do not irreversibly scar. The youth-focused protections run alongside broader safeguards requiring reasoned decisions on arrest, collection of corroborative evidence, and periodic supervisory review, collectively signaling a shift towards rights-sensitive policing where the future of first-time young suspects is not casually put at stake.