Supreme Court upholds life imprisonment till natural death, rejects convicts' plea
The Supreme Court has clarified that sentencing a convict to life imprisonment for the remainder of their natural life does not violate constitutional provisions, reaffirming
The Supreme Court has clarified that sentencing a convict to life imprisonment for the remainder of their natural life does not violate constitutional provisions, reaffirming the legality of such punishment in cases involving heinous offences where the death penalty is not awarded. A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih delivered the ruling while dismissing petitions filed by life convicts, including Ramashray and others, who had challenged the constitutional validity of imprisonment extending until the end of a convict's natural life. Read Full Story In its 21-page judgment, the court observed that a Constitution Bench had already settled the legal position in the Union of India vs V.
Sriharan (2016) case, which upheld the validity of imposing life imprisonment for the convict's entire remaining life. Referring to that precedent, the Bench rejected arguments that such a sentence violates constitutional rights. 'SPECIAL CATEGORY' PUNISHMENT VALID The court clarified that in cases involving grave and heinous crimes, where courts decide not to impose the death penalty, they are empowered to award a "special category" sentence requiring the convict to remain in prison for the rest of their natural life. It ruled that such punishment is constitutionally valid and leaves no scope for questioning its legality. COURT EXPLAINS REMISSION PROVISIONS The judgment also clarified the legal position regarding remission and premature release.
The Bench held that where a court specifically orders imprisonment for the remainder of a convict's life without remission, the convict cannot claim premature release as a matter of right. However, if the sentencing order does not expressly bar remission, the concerned state government may exercise its powers under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to consider reducing the sentence or granting remission in accordance with the law. PRESIDENT, GOVERNOR'S CLEMENCY POWERS REMAIN UNAFFECTED The Supreme Court further held that its ruling does not curtail the constitutional powers of the President under Article 72 or the Governor under Article 161 to grant pardon, reprieve, remission or commute sentences.
The Bench also observed that Article 32 of the Constitution cannot be used as a shortcut to challenge decisions taken by the President on mercy petitions. The petitions before the court had been filed by convicts whose death sentences were subsequently commuted to life imprisonment without remission either by courts or through the exercise of constitutional powers. Dismissing the pleas, the Supreme Court held that the issue had already been conclusively settled by the Constitution Bench in the V. Sriharan judgment and said filing fresh petitions on the same legal question amounted to an abuse of the judicial process. Ends
The BriefWire