The Supreme Court invokes the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, to grant retroactive relief to a man who was just 12 years old when he committed a crime in 1981, emphasizing the protection of juvenile rights.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India recently held that the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, can be applied retroactively to offences committed decades ago, even when the Children’s Act, 1960, governed the legal landscape at the time of the crime. This decision comes from a case that highlights the evolving approach of Indian courts towards juvenile justice and the protection of fundamental rights.
ALSO READ: Voting Rights of 5 Lakh Undertrial Prisoners in India: Supreme Court Issues Notice
The Background
The case revolves around an incident in Sultanpur district in 1981, where a then 12-year-old boy, Hansraj, was convicted of murder. While the Sessions Court acknowledged that he was a minor (aged 16 according to the trial record) and directed that he be kept in a children’s home under the 1960 Act, the High Court later acquitted him along with co-accused individuals in April 2000.
However, the State appealed, and the Supreme Court, in 2009, restored the original conviction and sentence. Hansraj had by then absconded and was arrested only in May 2022, nearly 41 years after the crime.
The Legal Question
The core question before the Supreme Court was whether Hansraj, who was a minor at the time of the offence, could claim relief under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, despite the crime being committed when the 1960 Act was in force.
The petitioner argued that he had already spent over 3 years and 8 months in custody, exceeding the maximum permissible period of detention for juveniles under Section 15(1)(g) of the JJ Act, 2000, and that this violated his fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Supreme Court’s Observations
Plea of Juvenility Can Be Raised at Any Stage
The Court emphasized Section 7-A of the JJ Act, 2000, which allows raising a plea of juvenility at any stage of proceedings, even after the final disposal of a case by the Supreme Court. The bench noted:
“Section 7-A of the JJ Act, 2000, 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 Court held that once it is undisputed that the person was a child at the time of the offence, courts are obligated to grant appropriate relief.
Violation of Constitutional Rights
Hansraj had already spent over three years in detention, which the Court deemed unlawful:
“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.”
Breach of Procedural Safeguards under the 1960 Act
The trial violated Section 24 of the Children’s Act, 1960, which prohibits joint trials of children with adult co-accused. The Court observed:
“We have also not been shown … why provisions contained in 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.”
ALSO READ: Umar Khalid Singled Out? Lawyer Says ‘Accused for WhatsApp Chats, While Admins Walk Free’
Purpose of Reformative Measures Rendered Futile
The Court noted:
“The petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than the period permissible in law. Moreover, the purpose for which the Sessions Court directed the petitioner to be kept in a children’s home is no longer feasible now.”
Continuing incarceration was therefore unjustifiable.
The Supreme Court directed Hansraj’s immediate release, recognizing that:
- His detention was illegal and violated the procedure established by law.
- The reformative objective of juvenile detention was no longer achievable.
- The Senior Superintendent of Central Jail, Varanasi, should act on a downloaded copy of the judgment without waiting for a certified copy.
Appearance:
Petitioner Hansraj: advocates Parinav Gupta, Pardeep Gupta, Mansi Gupta, Rakshit Rathi, Anuj Kumar Garg and Vipin Gupta.
The State: Advocates Neeraj Shekhar, Yashveer Singh, and Shivansh Pundir and Rohit K Singh
Case Title:
Hansraj vs State of UP
WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO. 340 OF 2025
Read Judgment:
