DATE: 09/10/2025
COURT: Supreme Court of India
BENCH: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice
Augustine George Masih
FACTS:
The petitioner, convicted of murder,
invoked the Supreme Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 32 of the
Constitution seeking release from custody. As per the custody certificate dated
August 14, 2025, he had been imprisoned for 3 years, 10 months, and 28 days.
The case originated from an incident on November 2, 1981, when the petitioner,
then aged about 12 years and 5 months, along with others, allegedly assaulted
and fatally injured the victim. Following his arrest on November 6, 1981, he
spent a little over a month in custody before being released on bail. In 1984,
the Special Additional Sessions Judge, Sultanpur, convicted all accused under
Sections 302/149, 147, and 148 of the IPC and sentenced them to life
imprisonment. However, the Sessions Court recognized the petitioner’s age
(around 16 years as per its finding) and extended the benefit of the Children’s
Act, 1960, directing that he be kept in a children’s home for reformation
instead of prison.
The High Court of Allahabad, in 2000,
acquitted all accused, but the State of Uttar Pradesh appealed. In 2009, the
Supreme Court reversed the acquittal, restoring the conviction and sentence
imposed by the Sessions Court. The petitioner absconded after this order and
was arrested only in May 2022. He subsequently filed the present writ petition,
arguing that he was a juvenile at the time of the offence and was entitled to
protection under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2000.
ISSUES:
The central issue before the Court was
whether the petitioner, who was a juvenile at the time of the offence committed
in 1981, was entitled to the benefits of the Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2000, particularly Section 7-A, which allows a
claim of juvenility to be raised at any stage, even after the conclusion of
proceedings.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The Supreme Court held that the petitioner
was indeed a juvenile on the date of the offence and had already undergone
detention beyond the legally permissible period of three years for juveniles.
Consequently, the Court ordered his immediate release, holding that his
continued incarceration violated Article 21 of the Constitution. The writ
petition was accordingly allowed, with the Senior Superintendent of Central
Jail, Varanasi, directed to act on a downloaded copy of the judgment for the
petitioner’s release.
The Court observed that the petitioner’s
date of birth, June 10, 1969 made him only 12 years and 5 months old at the
time of the offence. This fact had been acknowledged in the earlier
proceedings, including by the Supreme Court in 2009. Referring to Section 7-A
of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, the Court noted that the provision
explicitly permits the claim of juvenility to be raised before any court at any
stage, even after the conclusion of all appeals. The provision mandates that
courts recognize and determine such claims based on evidence, and if found
valid, treat the person as a juvenile. The Court also referred to the
constitutional right to life and liberty under Article 21, observing that the
petitioner’s prolonged custody—exceeding the maximum permissible three-year
detention for juveniles under Section 15(1)(g) of the 2000 Act—was contrary to
due process.
The Bench relied on several precedents,
including Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand, Dharambir v. State (NCT of
Delhi), and Vinod Katara v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which collectively affirmed
that the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, applied retrospectively
to cases pending when the Act came into force. It reiterated that individuals
below 18 years at the time of the offence, even if convicted prior to 2001, are
entitled to be treated as juveniles. The Court further held that there was no statutory
bar in the 1960 Act preventing it from granting relief, emphasizing that
legislative evolution in juvenile justice reflects a consistent intent to
prioritize reformation over retribution. Since the petitioner’s prolonged
detention violated his fundamental rights and served no rehabilitative purpose,
the Court concluded that his immediate release was both legally and
constitutionally warranted.
ANALYSIS:
This judgment reinforces the Supreme
Court’s liberal and reformative interpretation of juvenile justice laws in
India, emphasizing that the protection afforded to juveniles is not curtailed
by procedural or temporal limitations. By invoking Section 7-A of the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, the Court reaffirmed that
claims of juvenility can be raised at any stage, even after conviction and
final disposal of the case. The Court’s reasoning underscores that juvenile
justice legislation, rooted in principles of reformation rather than
retribution, must be applied retrospectively to safeguard the fundamental
rights of individuals who were minors at the time of the offence. Through
reliance on precedents such as Pratap Singh, Dharambir, and Vinod Katara, the
Bench highlighted the judiciary’s consistent approach toward ensuring that
procedural technicalities do not obstruct substantive justice, especially in
cases involving children in conflict with the law.
The decision also reflects the Court’s
strong commitment to upholding Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees
the right to life and personal liberty. The prolonged detention of the
petitioner, despite his established juvenile status, was deemed an egregious
violation of this right. The Court’s direction for immediate release
demonstrates a balance between compassion and constitutional responsibility,
acknowledging that punitive incarceration of juveniles beyond the statutory
limit undermines the rehabilitative purpose of juvenile legislation. This
judgment thus strengthens the jurisprudence that the criminal justice system
must treat child offenders with humanity and fairness, ensuring that the
objective of reformation and reintegration prevails over retribution.
info@adhwaitha.com