Article 21 Violated: Madras High Court Says Constitutional Courts Must Undo Wrongful Life Imprisonment Of Juveniles, Frees Man Jailed For 25 Years

"This Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India having found that the convict was a juvenile at the time of commission of the offence in terms of Section 20 of the JJ Act, 2000, can certainly undo the error as the right of the convict under Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been violated." Madras High Court, in a significant ruling pronounced on August 24, 2026, held that constitutional courts have an unyielding duty under Article 21 of the Constitution to step in and undo the wrongful life imprisonment of individuals who were juveniles at the time of the offence.

A division bench comprising Dr. Justice Anita Sumanth and Justice Sunder Mohan ruled that exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to terminate the prolonged, illegal incarceration of a juvenile does not amount to a review of an earlier appellate judgment, ordering the immediate release of a convict who had languished in prison for almost 25 years.

The petitioner preferred a writ of mandamus seeking the immediate release of his cousin brother, Ganga @ Gangatharan, who was convicted under Sections 376 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri, and sentenced to life imprisonment. The High Court had dismissed the convict’s appeal in 2006 under the older Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, which capped juvenility for boys at 16 years. However, following a subsequent petition in 2025, the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), Krishnagiri, conducted an age enquiry and conclusively determined that the convict was 16 years, 5 months, and 2 days old on the date of the offence on October 7, 1996.

The primary question before the court was whether the High Court, exercising constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 226, is empowered and obligated under Article 21 to undo the wrongful life imprisonment of a convict proved to be a juvenile. The court was also called upon to determine whether considering the benefit of the amended Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 at this stage would impermissibly amount to a review of its earlier final criminal appeal judgment.

Plea Of Juvenility Can Be Raised At Any Stage Even After Conviction Attains Finality

The bench emphasized that the plea of juvenility is a statutory right that cuts across procedural technicalities and can be raised at any time, even after a conviction and sentence have attained finality. The judges observed that the statutory framework and constitutional guarantees under Article 21 strictly bar any person from being detained or punished in contravention of juvenile justice legislation.

The court referred to its earlier division bench ruling in Jayavel v. State (2013), which held that a claim of juvenility can be raised in independent proceedings under Article 226 because Article 21 guarantees that no one shall be jailed except in accordance with the law, particularly in violation of the protective provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act.

"Article 21, Constitution of India guarantees that no one shall be jailed except as per law. It also guarantees that no one shall be punished, detained in jail except in accordance with law."

Constitutional Courts Bear Mandatory Duty To Protect Juveniles Under Article 21

Highlighting the constitutional mantle cast upon superior courts, the bench drew authoritative backing from the Supreme Court’s landmark verdict in Om Prakash @ Israel @ Raju @ Raju Das v. Union of India (2025 SCC OnLine SC 47). The apex court had clarified that casual adjudications or previous omissions to apply the correct statutory provisions do not extinguish a convict's right to claim juvenility.

The bench reiterated that constitutional courts are not merely exercising procedural discretion, but acting in discharge of an affirmative duty to remedy illegal deprivation of personal liberty caused by wrongful incarceration.

"Doing so is not an exercise of the powers conferred under Articles 32, 136 or 226 of the Constitution, but an act in fulfilment of a mandated duty enjoined upon the Courts, to give effect to the laudable objective of a social welfare legislation."

Omission To Apply Section 20 Explanation Must Be Rectified

Addressing the facts of the case, the bench noted that when the convict’s criminal appeal was dismissed in 2007, the Court had applied the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 without considering the crucial Explanation inserted into Section 20 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 with effect from August 22, 2006. Under Section 2(k) and Section 2(l) of the 2000 Act, the age of juvenility for all children was raised to 18 years.

The bench held that the Explanation to Section 20 explicitly mandates that in all pending cases—including trials, revisions, appeals, or any subsequent criminal proceedings—the determination of juvenility must apply Section 2(l) as if the provisions had been in force at the material time when the alleged offence occurred.

"This Court would have certainly found the convict to be a juvenile, had the above provision been brought to its notice. Therefore, though the plea of juvenility was raised and decided, since a very important statutory provision was not considered, this case has to be treated on par with any other case where the plea of juvenility was not raised."

Supreme Court Precedents Mandate Retrospective Benefit Of Juvenility

The bench heavily relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Dharambir v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2010) 5 SCC 344, alongside Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan (2009) and Amit Singh v. State of Maharashtra (2011). These rulings settled that by virtue of Section 7A and the Explanation to Section 20 of the 2000 Act, any person below the age of 18 years on the date of the incident is entitled to the benefit of the Act, rendering any custodial sentence passed by a regular criminal court ineffective.

The bench observed that while prison authorities are strictly bound to execute court warrants and cannot release convicts on their own accord, the High Court under Article 226 possesses plenary powers to rectify manifest constitutional breaches.

Undoing Unlawful Confinement Is Not A Review Of Criminal Appeal Verdict

The court firmly rejected any notion that rectifying the juvenile's illegal confinement would amount to an impermissible review of its 2007 criminal appeal verdict. The bench observed that when a citizen’s fundamental right under Article 21 has been infringed through continuous detention beyond the maximum three-year institutional period permitted under the Juvenile Justice Act, the High Court is constitutionally obligated to undo the error.

Taking into account that the convict had already suffered incarceration for nearly 25 years—far beyond the maximum statutory limit of three years—the bench held that his continued detention in Central Prison, Vellore, was entirely unwarranted, unjustified, and violative of his fundamental liberties.

Allowing the writ petition, the Madras High Court directed the State and prison authorities to forthwith release the convict, Ganga @ Gangatharan, from Central Prison, Vellore, provided his custody is not required in connection with any other case. The ruling reinforces that procedural finality must yield to substantive fundamental rights under Article 21, placing a positive obligation on constitutional courts to terminate the wrongful life imprisonment of individuals who committed offences as children.

Date of Decision: 24 August 2026