Introduction
In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed the wide and reformative reach of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, holding that its provisions can apply even to offences committed decades earlier under the erstwhile Children’s Act, 1960.
The judgment, delivered in Hansraj v. State of Uttar Pradesh on October 10, 2025, by a Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih, ordered the release of a man convicted for a murder committed in 1981, after finding that he was only 12 years old at the time of the offence.
The Court ruled that continued incarceration violated his fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, since the maximum permissible period of detention for a juvenile cannot exceed three years.
Background of the Case
The case arose from an incident that occurred on November 2, 1981, in Sultanpur district, Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner, Hansraj, was 12 years and 5 months old when he was accused and subsequently convicted of murder by the sessions court.
While convicting him, the trial court noted that he was entitled to the benefit of the Children’s Act, 1960, and therefore ordered that he be kept in a children’s home rather than sent to prison, to allow for his reformation.
However, when the matter reached the Allahabad High Court, all convicts, including Hansraj, were acquitted in April 2000. The State of Uttar Pradesh challenged this acquittal before the Supreme Court, which on May 8, 2009, reversed the High Court’s decision and restored the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.
Hansraj subsequently absconded and was arrested only in May 2022, over four decades after the incident. He was lodged in Agra Central Jail, where he spent more than three years and eight months in custody before filing a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking his release.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
For the Petitioner
Appearing for Hansraj, Advocate Parinav Gupta contended that the petitioner was a juvenile at the time of the offence, and under Section 15(1)(g) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, the maximum period of detention for a child in conflict with law is three years.
Therefore, continued imprisonment beyond this period was illegal and unconstitutional, violating the petitioner’s right to life under Article 21. It was further argued that Section 7A of the JJ Act allows a plea of juvenility to be raised at any stage of proceedings, even after final disposal by the Supreme Court.
For the State
On behalf of the State, Advocate Neeraj Shekhar submitted that since the offence occurred in 1981, the Children’s Act, 1960, was the law in force and not the JJ Act, 2000. Consequently, the benefit of the latter should not extend to offences committed before its enactment.
Supreme Court’s Findings
The Supreme Court rejected the State’s argument and ruled that the benefits of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, could indeed be retrospectively applied to cases where the offence was committed under the earlier Children’s Act, 1960, provided the accused was a child at the time of the incident.
Section 7A: Plea of Juvenility at Any Stage
The Court emphasized that Section 7A of the JJ Act permits a plea of juvenility to be raised at any stage of proceedings, even after the final disposal of an appeal or special leave petition. Therefore, there was no bar on the Court granting relief under the 2000 Act.
“Section 7-A of the JJ Act, 2000, relevant for the present case, permits raising of a plea of juvenility in any court at any stage and even after final disposal of a special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution,” the Bench observed.
The Court further noted that no provision in the Children’s Act, 1960, restricted it from granting relief under subsequent enactments.
Violation of Section 24: Joint Trial with Adults
Another critical observation by the Bench was that Hansraj was illegally tried along with adult co-accused, contrary to Section 24 of the Children’s Act, 1960, which explicitly prohibits joint trials of children with adults.
“We have also not been shown why the provisions of Section 24 of the 1960 Act – prohibiting joint trial of a child with a person who is not a child – was observed in the breach,” the judgment noted.
This violation, the Court held, further demonstrated that the trial proceedings had not adhered to the procedural safeguards intended to protect children in conflict with law.
Article 21 and Illegal Detention
The Supreme Court underscored that Hansraj’s continued imprisonment was contrary to the procedure established by law, as he had already been in custody beyond the permissible three-year limit for juveniles.
“Since there is no quarrel with the fact that the petitioner was a child at the time of commission of the offence and the petitioner having been behind bars for more than 3 years, his liberty has been curtailed not in accordance with procedure established by law. Breach of the right guaranteed by Article 21 is writ large,” the Court observed.
Consequently, the Bench held that Hansraj’s incarceration was unconstitutional, violating his fundamental right to personal liberty.
Directions and Outcome
Given these findings, the Supreme Court directed the immediate release of Hansraj, holding that:
- He had already spent more than the maximum permissible period of three years in custody as a juvenile.
- The reformative purpose of sending him to a children’s home was no longer feasible due to the passage of time.
- His detention beyond the legal limit amounted to illegal confinement.
The Court also directed the Senior Superintendent of Central Jail, Varanasi, to act upon the downloaded copy of the judgment without waiting for a certified copy, ensuring prompt execution of the release order.
Significance of the Judgment
This judgment is a landmark reaffirmation of the reformative philosophy underlying juvenile justice law in India. It highlights the Supreme Court’s commitment to ensuring that procedural and substantive protections for children are not defeated by technicalities or passage of time.
The decision also clarifies that:
- Juvenility can be claimed at any stage — even after conviction or appeal — ensuring no child remains unlawfully detained.
- The JJ Act, 2000, being a beneficial and welfare-oriented legislation, must receive liberal interpretation to protect the rights of children in conflict with law.
- The Constitutional guarantee under Article 21 operates as a safeguard against unlawful incarceration, particularly for juveniles.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Hansraj v. State of UP reinforces the spirit of compassion and reformation central to India’s juvenile justice system. By applying the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, to a case dating back over four decades, the Court ensured that justice remains humane, equitable, and constitutionally compliant.
The verdict stands as a reminder that the law’s protective mantle extends even across time, particularly for those who were children at the time of their offences, embodying the principle that no person should suffer beyond what justice and the law permit.
Also Read
Supreme Court Declines Blanket Relief in Bihar SIR Case; Directs Legal Aid for Excluded Voters
