Legal Review and Analysis of Hansraj vs State of UP 2025 INSC 1211

1. Heading of the Judgment

Case Title: HANSRAJ vs. STATE OF U.P.
Citation: 2025 INSC 1211
Court: Supreme Court of India
Jurisdiction: Criminal Original Jurisdiction
Writ Petition No.: Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 340 of 2025
Judges: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dipankar Datta and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih
Date of Judgment: October 09, 2025

2. Related Laws and Sections

The judgment extensively discusses and applies the following statutes and provisions:

• The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (JJ Act, 2000): This is the central legislation governing the case.
  Section 7-A: The cornerstone of the judgment. It details the "Procedure to be followed when claim of juvenility is raised before any court." It allows a claim of juvenility to be raised at any stage, even after final disposal of the case, and mandates an inquiry to determine the age.

• The Children Act, 1960: The legislation in force at the time of the offence in 1981. The Court contrasts its provisions with the more beneficent JJ Act, 2000.

• The Constitution of India:
  Article 21: Right to Life and Personal Liberty. The Court held that detaining a juvenile beyond the permissible period is a violation of this fundamental right.
  Article 32: The extraordinary writ jurisdiction under which the petition was filed.

• The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC):
  Section 149: Being a member of an unlawful assembly, which was the basis for the petitioner's conviction.

• Precedents Cited:
  Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand, (2005) 3 SCC 551
  Dharambir v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 5 SCC 344
  Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 13 SCC 211
  Vinod Katara v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2023) 15 SCC 210

3. Basic Judgment Details

• Parties: Petitioner - Hansraj (a murder convict); Respondent - State of Uttar Pradesh.

• Nature of Petition: A Writ Petition filed directly before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution.

• Relief Sought: Immediate release of the petitioner from jail, arguing his detention was illegal as he was a juvenile at the time of the offence.

• Core Offence: The petitioner was convicted for murder under Sections 302/149 IPC for an incident that occurred on November 02, 1981.

4. Core Principle and Analysis of the Judgment

The Central Issue: Retrospective Application of Beneficial Juvenile Justice Laws

The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner, who was undisputedly a juvenile (aged 12 years and 5 months) at the time of committing the offence in 1981, is entitled to the beneficial provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, which came into force much later, and consequently, whether his continued detention was illegal.

The State's Opposition and the Court's Counter-Analysis

The respondent-State argued against the petitioner's release on three primary grounds, which the Court addressed systematically:

1. Applicability of the 1960 Act: The State contended that since the crime occurred in 1981, the older Children Act, 1960 should apply, not the JJ Act, 2000.
   Court's Analysis: The Supreme Court, relying on a line of Constitution Bench and other landmark precedents (Pratap Singh, Dharambir, Hari Ram), firmly established that the JJ Act, 2000, and specifically Section 7-A, have a retrospective application. This means the benefit of the law extends to all persons who were below eighteen years on the date of the offence, even if the crime was committed before the Act came into force, provided the claim of juvenility is raised and substantiated.

2. Heinous Nature of the Offence: The State argued that murder is a heinous offence, and the convict should not be shown mercy.
   Court's Analysis: The Court scrutinized the facts and noted that the petitioner's conviction was based on Section 149 IPC (vicarious liability as a member of an unlawful assembly). There was no finding that he played a specific, direct role in the murder (e.g., using the knife). More importantly, the Court emphasized that the philosophy of juvenile justice law is fundamentally reformative, not punitive. The law makes no distinction between offences for the purpose of declaring juvenility; the sole determinant is the age on the date of the offence.

3. Conduct of the Petitioner: The State highlighted that the petitioner absconded after the Supreme Court restored his conviction in 2009 and was arrested only in 2022.
   Court's Analysis: While the Court noted this conduct, it held that the illegality of detention overrides the petitioner's conduct. The question was not about granting mercy but about enforcing a statutory and constitutional right. Once it was established that the detention exceeded the legal maximum for a juvenile, the right to liberty under Article 21 was breached, warranting immediate release.

The Violation of Article 21 and the Final Reasoning

The Court concluded that:

• The petitioner was a juvenile on the date of the offence (an undisputed fact).

• As per Section 15(1)(g) of the JJ Act, 2000, the maximum period of detention for a juvenile is three years.

• The petitioner had already undergone 3 years, 10 months, and 28 days of incarceration.

• Therefore, his continued detention beyond three years was not in accordance with the procedure established by law, resulting in a clear violation of his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.

5. Final Outcome and Supreme Court Directions

The Supreme Court allowed the writ petition and issued the following directions:

• The petitioner, Hansraj, was ordered to be immediately released from Central Jail, Agra/Varanasi.

• The release is conditional on him not being wanted in any other case.

• The Senior Superintendent of the jail was directed to act on a downloaded copy of the judgment without insisting on a certified copy, ensuring expedited release.

6. Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs) Based on the Judgment

Question 1: In Hansraj v. State of U.P. (2025 INSC 1211), on what primary legal ground did the Supreme Court hold the petitioner's detention to be illegal?
(a) The evidence against him was weak and circumstantial.
(b) He had already undergone a sentence longer than the life term prescribed.
(c) He was a juvenile at the time of the offence and his detention exceeded the maximum period permissible for a juvenile.
(d) The trial conducted by the Sessions Court was vitiated by procedural irregularities.

(c) He was a juvenile at the time of the offence and his detention exceeded the maximum period permissible for a juvenile.

Question 2: The Supreme Court's decision in Hansraj v. State of U.P. heavily relied on the retrospective application of a specific provision from the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000. Which provision was this?
(a) Section 15, which defines the maximum period of detention.
(b) Section 7-A, which allows a claim of juvenility to be raised at any stage, even after final disposal of a case.
(c) Section 2(k), which defines a "juvenile".
(d) Section 20, which deals with the special provisions for pending cases.

(b) Section 7-A, which allows a claim of juvenility to be raised at any stage, even after final disposal of a case.