The Court, comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih, ordered the immediate release of a murder convict (Hansraj v. State of U.P., 2025 INSC 1211) who had already spent over 3 years and 8 months in jail—far exceeding the maximum period allowed for a juvenile.

This judgment is a crucial reminder that the benefits of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (JJ Act) are sacrosanct and can be claimed at any stage, no matter how much time has passed since the offence.

The facts of the case are extraordinary:

1.The Crime (1981): The incident occurred in November 1981. The petitioner, Hansraj, was arrested soon after. His undisputed age at the time was 12 years and 5 months.
2.The Conviction (1984): The trial court convicted him for murder. Crucially, the Sessions Court acknowledged his age (about 16 years, though the actual age was lower) and applied the then-in-force Children's Act, 1960, directing him to a children’s home instead of jail.
3.The Reversal (2009): After a series of appeals and acquittals, the Supreme Court finally restored the conviction in 2009, upholding the Sessions Court's order regarding the petitioner's juvenile status.
4.The Absconder (2009-2022): The petitioner absconded for 13 years and was finally arrested on May 19, 2022.
5.The Writ (2025): By the time he approached the Supreme Court with a writ petition, he had been in adult custody for 3 years, 10 months, and 28 days.

The petitioner's counsel argued that since he was a child at the time of the offence, his detention in adult jail for more than three years was illegal and violated his fundamental right to life (Article 21).

The State argued that because the crime was heinous (murder) and occurred before the JJ Act, 2000 came into effect, the petitioner shouldn't receive mercy, especially since he had absconded for years.

Supreme Court's Key Reasoning

The Supreme Court rejected the State’s argument and firmly relied on the intent and specific provisions of the JJ Act:

1. The "Any Stage" Rule (Section 7-A of the JJ Act, 2000)

The Court highlighted the crucial provision in Section 7-A (now mirrored in the 2015 Act), which states:

"a claim of juvenility may be raised before any court and it shall be recognised at any stage, even after final disposal of the case..."

Since the petitioner's age (12 years, 5 months) was undisputed and even acknowledged by previous courts, no fresh inquiry was needed. The Court stressed that even though the crime was from 1981, the beneficial legislation (JJ Act) must apply retrospectively to give relief.

2. The 3-Year Maximum Detention Limit

The most decisive point was the maximum period of detention prescribed for a juvenile:

a)Under Section 15(1)(g) of the JJ Act, 2000, the maximum period a child can be kept in a special home for rehabilitation is three years.
b)The petitioner had already been detained for well over three years.

3. Article 21 Breach

The Court declared that the petitioner's continued incarceration beyond the legally permissible three years was a direct breach of his right guaranteed by Article 21 (Protection of Life and Personal Liberty). The detention was no longer "in accordance with procedure established by law."

Concluding that the petitioner's liberty had been unlawfully curtailed, the Supreme Court allowed the writ petition and ordered his immediate release from Central Jail, Agra, "if not wanted in any other case."

JUDGEMENT LINK

https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2025/40047/40047_2025_9_1502_64750_Judgement_09-Oct-2025.pdf