Subramanian Swamy v. Raju

Facts

• After the Nirbhaya gang rape (2012), one accused was a juvenile (17 years, 6 months)
• He received maximum 3 years in a reform home under the JJ Act 2000
• Public outrage followed. A petition challenged the 18-year uniform threshold as unconstitutional.
• The petitioner argued that violent juveniles aged 16-18 should be tried as adults.

Issues

1. Whether the JJ Act 2000's uniform 18-year threshold violates Art. 14.
2. Whether the legislature should reduce the age to 16 for serious offences.

Held

• The 18-year threshold is constitutionally valid based on: (a) UNCRC standards (Art.1), (b) scientific evidence of adolescent brain development, (c) legislative policy choice.
• The classification (below 18: JJ Act; above 18: criminal law) is rational with nexus to the reformative objective.
• However, the court acknowledged that the legislature could revisit the issue and introduce exceptions for heinous offences.
• This observation paved the way for S.15 of the JJ Act, 2015 (preliminary assessment for 16-18 in heinous offences).

Ratio Decidendi

The age of criminal responsibility is a policy choice within legislative competence. The legislature is entitled to rely on scientific research, international standards, and reformative penology to fix the threshold. Judicial intervention is not warranted merely because individual cases produce outcomes perceived as unjust. Legislative reform, not judicial re-writing, is the appropriate remedy.