The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that courts can direct a convict to remain behind bars for the rest of their natural life without the benefit of remission, dismissing a series of petitions that questioned the legality of such punishments.
A Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih refused to entertain challenges brought by four groups of convicts, including prisoners whose death sentences had earlier been commuted or converted into life terms extending until the end of their natural lives.
At the centre of the dispute was the argument that Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code recognizes only two punishments for murder—death or life imprisonment—and does not envisage a sentence that explicitly excludes remission. The petitioners further maintained that such directions effectively nullify the remission powers vested in governments under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Court, however, held that the controversy had already been settled by the Constitution Bench ruling in Union of India v. V. Sriharan (2016). According to the Bench, reopening the issue before a two-judge bench was impermissible.
Observing that the law on the subject was no longer open to debate, the judges remarked that the attempt to challenge the validity of life sentences extending for the remainder of a convict’s natural life amounted to a misuse of the judicial process.
The Bench pointed out that the Constitution Bench had expressly recognized the legality of such punishments while endorsing the principle laid down in Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State of Karnataka (2008). That judgment carved out a special category of punishment, allowing courts to impose imprisonment for the remainder of a person’s life in cases where the death penalty is considered excessive but ordinary life imprisonment appears inadequate.
The ruling clarifies that constitutional courts possess the authority to impose such sentences in exceptional circumstances, ensuring that convicts remain incarcerated beyond the scope of the usual remission framework.
At the same time, the Court distinguished between life sentences that expressly prohibit remission and those that do not. It noted that where a judgment merely imposes life imprisonment without specifically excluding remission, the State’s statutory powers under Section 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code remain intact.
The judges stated that applications seeking remission or suspension of sentence would continue to be maintainable in such cases.
Addressing another aspect of the petitions, the Court underscored that Article 32 of the Constitution cannot be transformed into an alternative route for prisoners seeking relief without first exhausting remedies available under the constitutional framework.
The Bench observed that some of the petitioners had not pursued options such as mercy petitions or applications for remission under Articles 72 and 161, which empower the President and Governors to grant clemency.
Describing Article 32 as the “heart and soul” of the Constitution, the Court nevertheless emphasized that its extraordinary jurisdiction cannot be invoked as a shortcut to bypass established legal procedures.
The judgment further stressed that the clemency powers exercised by constitutional authorities operate independently and are not ordinarily subject to interference by courts. Accepting the petitioners’ argument, the Bench said, would effectively require the judiciary to sit in appeal over decisions constitutionally entrusted to the executive.
