Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India, Division Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih ordered the immediate release of a convict who was found to have been a juvenile at the time of a 1981 murder. The Court held that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, operates retrospectively and extends to offences committed before its enactment. It ruled that the petitioner’s continued imprisonment for more than three years was unlawful, as it exceeded the maximum permissible period of detention under the Act, and declared that such confinement violated the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The petitioner, convicted of murder in 1984, invoked the Supreme Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 32 seeking release from Central Jail, Agra. The case originated from a 1981 incident in Sultanpur, Uttar Pradesh, where the petitioner, then aged 12 years and five months, and others were accused of assaulting a man who later succumbed to his injuries. The Sessions Court convicted all accused in August 1984 under Sections 302/149, 147, and 148 IPC, sentencing the co-accused to life imprisonment while directing that the petitioner, being a child, be kept in a children’s home under the Children’s Act, 1960.

Also Read: Supreme Court: Right To Seek Arbitration Not Lost Despite Inoperable Clause Under Statutory Amendment; Dispute Referred To Delhi International Arbitration Centre

The High Court of Allahabad later acquitted all convicts in April 2000, but the Supreme Court restored their convictions in May 2009. The petitioner absconded until his arrest in May 2022. His counsel argued that detention exceeding three years contravened Section 15(1)(g) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, and Article 21. The State contended that the 1960 Act, not the 2000 Act, applied as the crime occurred in 1981, and that the offence was heinous. The Court examined whether the petitioner, a child during the offence, was entitled to benefit under the 2000 Act as amended in 2006.

The Court recorded that the petitioner “was 12 years 5 months old on the date of the incident” and that “even this Court has acknowledged such fact in its order dated 8th May, 2009.” It noted that the petitioner’s role was only as a member of an unlawful assembly under Section 149 IPC and that “apart from one assailant who was armed with a knife, the other assailants had lathis in their hands.”

Justice Datta observed that “the petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than the period permissible in law,” and that the purpose for which he was earlier directed to be kept in a children’s home “is no longer feasible now.” The Court further stated, “No provision in the 1960 Act has been brought to our notice that creates a legal impediment and, thus, limits our authority to grant relief.” Referring to Section 7-A of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, the Bench remarked that “the courts are under an obligation to consider the plea of juvenility and to grant appropriate relief.”

Also Read: Delhi High Court Rejects Roche’s Patent Infringement Appeal, Allowing Natco to Continue Selling Spinal Muscular Atrophy Drug Risdiplam

Citing Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand and Vinod Katara v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court concluded that all persons who were below 18 years at the time of the offence “would be treated as juveniles even if the claim of juvenility is raised after they have attained the age of eighteen years.” It found that the petitioner’s continued detention “was not in accordance with procedure established by law” and violated Article 21.

The Court ordered: “Accordingly, there shall be an order in terms of prayer (a) of the writ petition. The petitioner shall be immediately released, if not wanted in any other case.” It further directed that “The Senior Superintendent, Central Jail, Varanasi, shall act on the basis of a downloaded copy of this judgment and order as and when produced, without insisting for a certified copy thereof.” The writ petition was thus allowed, with no order as to costs.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. Parinav Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Neeraj Shekar, Advocate

Case Title: Hansraj v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1211
Case Number: Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 340 of 2025
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Augustine George Masih