Hansraj v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025
The JJ Act, 2000 applies retrospectively to all persons who were below 18 years at the time of the offence, even if convicted prior to its commencement.
Judgement Details
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision
15 October 2025
Judges
Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice A.G. Masih
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Facts of the Case
-
The petitioner committed a murder offence in 1981 when he was 12 years old.
-
In 1984, the Sessions Court convicted him and directed that he be kept in a children’s home under the Indian Children Act, 1960.
-
In 2000, the Allahabad High Court acquitted the petitioner and co-accused.
-
In 2009, the Supreme Court reversed the acquittal and restored the conviction.
-
The petitioner absconded and was taken into custody in 2022.
-
Having completed over three years in custody, he filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking release, invoking the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, claiming that his continued detention violated Article 21.
-
The State argued that since the offence was committed in 1981, the JJ Act, 2000 (which came into force on 1 April 2001) could not be applied retrospectively.
Issues
-
Whether the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 applies retrospectively to offences committed before its commencement.
-
Whether the claim of juvenility can be raised even after conviction and sentencing, including post-final disposal.
-
Whether the petitioner’s continued detention beyond three years violates his fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21.
Held
-
The JJ Act, 2000 applies retrospectively to all persons who were below 18 years at the time of the offence, even if convicted prior to its commencement.
-
Detention beyond three years under Section 15(1)(g) of the JJ Act is illegal.
-
The petitioner’s liberty was unlawfully curtailed, breaching Article 21.
-
Immediate release ordered, based on the digital copy of the judgment—the Court did not wait for the certified copy, given the constitutional urgency.
Analysis
-
The Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih reaffirmed the retrospective applicability of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, in line with the Constitution Bench decision in Pratap Singh (2005) and Dharambir (2010).
-
The Court reiterated that the age of the offender on the date of the offence is the determining factor, not the date of trial or conviction.
-
The principle of beneficial legislation was emphasized — juvenile justice laws are reformative, not retributive, and therefore must be interpreted liberally to protect the rights of children in conflict with law.
-
The State’s objection that the JJ Act could not apply to offences committed before 2001 was rejected as inconsistent with binding precedents.
-
The Court found no conflict between the Indian Children Act, 1960 and the JJ Act, 2000, and held that the latter supersedes earlier laws in protecting juveniles.
-
The fundamental right to liberty was given primacy, as the petitioner’s incarceration beyond three years amounted to an unconstitutional deprivation of liberty.
-
The Court also highlighted the continuity of protection through legislative evolution — noting that Section 9(2) of the JJ Act, 2015 is the modern equivalent of Section 7-A of the JJ Act, 2000, maintaining the right to raise juvenility claims at any stage.