In a significant judgment reaffirming India’s sentencing framework, the Supreme Court of India has upheld the constitutional validity of imposing imprisonment for the remainder of a convict’s natural life, including cases where such imprisonment is directed to continue without the benefit of statutory remission.

The decision, delivered by a Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih, dismisses multiple writ petitions that questioned the legality and constitutionality of such sentences. The ruling reiterates the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench in Union of India v. V. Sriharan (2016) and once again clarifies the distinction between ordinary life imprisonment and a judicially imposed sentence requiring incarceration for the convict’s entire natural life.

Apart from settling the legal position once again, the judgment also provides important observations regarding the scope of remission, the powers of constitutional authorities under Articles 72 and 161, and the limited role of Article 32 in challenging criminal sentences.

 

Background of the Case

The Supreme Court heard a batch of writ petitions filed by four different sets of convicts, several of whom had originally been awarded the death penalty. Subsequently, either constitutional authorities or the courts commuted or modified those death sentences into imprisonment for the remainder of the convicts’ natural lives.

The petitioners challenged these modified sentences on constitutional grounds, arguing that such punishments were unknown to law and violated statutory rights relating to remission.

The central issue before the Court was:

Whether a sentence directing imprisonment for the remainder of a convict’s natural life, particularly without remission, is constitutionally valid and consistent with Indian criminal law?

 

 

Arguments Advanced by the Petitioners

The petitioners raised multiple constitutional and statutory objections.

1. Section 302 IPC Recognizes Only Two Punishments –

The principal contention was that Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code prescribes only:

• Death penalty; or
• Imprisonment for life.

According to the petitioners, the courts cannot create a third category of punishment called “imprisonment till the remainder of natural life without remission.”

They argued that such a punishment amounts to judicial legislation.

2. Violation of Statutory Remission Rights –

The petitioners further submitted that:

• Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure gives the appropriate government the power to suspend or remit sentences.
• A judicial direction eliminating remission effectively nullifies this statutory power.
• Therefore, courts cannot prevent the executive from exercising remission powers granted under law.

3. Violation of Constitutional Guarantees –

The petitioners also argued that imprisonment without any possibility of remission:

• violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution;
• is arbitrary;
• is disproportionate; and
• deprives prisoners of hope of rehabilitation.

According to them, such sentences amount to cruel and excessive punishment.

 

Supreme Court’s Decision

Rejecting every challenge, the Supreme Court dismissed all petitions.

The Bench categorically held that the issue had already been conclusively decided by the Constitution Bench in Union of India v. V. Sriharan (2016) and therefore no fresh challenge could be entertained.

The Court observed:

“A five-judge Bench has said that sentences for the remainder of natural life are valid. Where does the scope arise for it to be contended that such sentences are invalid or unconstitutional before a Bench of two Judges?”

The Court described the repeated challenge as:

• a misuse of judicial process; and
• bordering on abuse of the process of law.

 

Reliance on the Constitution Bench Judgment in V. Sriharan

The present judgment substantially rests upon the landmark Constitution Bench decision in:

Union of India v. V. Sriharan alias Murugan (2016) 7 SCC 1

That Constitution Bench authoritatively held that constitutional courts possess the power to impose a sentence requiring imprisonment for the remainder of the convict’s natural life in appropriate cases.

The Court had recognized a “special category” of punishment lying between:

• ordinary life imprisonment; and
• death penalty.

This special category ensures that exceptionally grave offences receive punishment proportionate to their seriousness while avoiding capital punishment.

The present Bench reiterated that this legal position is binding and cannot be reopened before a smaller Bench.

 

The Origin of the “Special Category” of Punishment

The judgment traces its roots to another landmark case:

Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State of Karnataka (2008) 13 SCC 767

In that case, the Supreme Court recognized that certain crimes may deserve punishment more severe than ordinary life imprisonment but may not justify the irreversible penalty of death.

To bridge this gap, the Court evolved the doctrine of:

Life imprisonment for the remainder of the convict’s natural life.

This category has since become an important component of India’s sentencing jurisprudence.

 

What Does “Imprisonment for the Remainder of Natural Life” Mean?

The judgment once again clarifies an issue that often creates confusion.

Ordinary life imprisonment legally means imprisonment for the convict’s entire life.

However, under statutory provisions, the sentence may be remitted or shortened by the appropriate government.

Where a constitutional court specifically directs imprisonment for the remainder of natural life without remission, the convict must remain incarcerated for the rest of his or her natural life unless constitutional clemency is granted.

Thus, the sentence does not create a new punishment.

Rather, it specifies the manner in which an existing life sentence is to operate.

 

Important Clarification Regarding Remission

One of the most significant aspects of the judgment is the Court’s clarification regarding remission.

The Bench held that there is a clear distinction between:

Life imprisonment simpliciter

and

Life imprisonment specifically directed to continue without remission.

The Court observed that:

• where the sentence merely states “life imprisonment”,

the powers of the State Government under Section 432 CrPC remain available;

• however,
• where the Court specifically directs imprisonment for the remainder of natural life without remission, the ordinary statutory remission mechanism cannot override that judicial direction.

The Court observed:

“…when a sentence awarded is for imprisonment for life without the categorical addition of ‘without remission’, the power of the State under Section 432 Cr.P.C. is unaffected…”

Thus, statutory remission survives unless expressly excluded by judicial direction.

 

Constitutional Clemency Powers Remain Intact

An equally important aspect of the judgment is that it distinguishes statutory remission from constitutional mercy powers.

The Court clarified that even where imprisonment for the remainder of natural life without remission is imposed, the constitutional powers of:

• the President under Article 72, and
• the Governor under Article 161,

continue to exist.

These constitutional powers:

• cannot be curtailed by courts;
• remain independent;
• operate outside the statutory remission framework.

Therefore, judicial directions restricting statutory remission do not eliminate constitutional mercy jurisdiction.

 

Article 32 Cannot Be Used as a Shortcut

The Supreme Court also made important observations regarding Article 32.

The Bench acknowledged Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s famous description of Article 32 as the “heart and soul” of the Constitution.

However, the Court emphasized that Article 32 cannot become a substitute for statutory or constitutional remedies available elsewhere.

Many petitioners had directly approached the Supreme Court without first pursuing:

• remission applications;
• mercy petitions;
• executive remedies.

The Court held that litigants cannot bypass these established procedures and invoke Article 32 as the first remedy.

The judgment states that:

“…this right cannot be used to circumvent other procedures, using it as a shortcut…”

Accordingly, the petitions were dismissed.

 

Why This Judgment Is Important

This judgment is significant for several reasons.

1. Reaffirms Settled Law –

The Court removes any lingering uncertainty regarding the legality of life imprisonment for the remainder of natural life.

2. Strengthens Sentencing Jurisprudence –

The judgment reinforces the judicially evolved middle path between:

• death penalty; and
• ordinary life imprisonment.

This provides courts with greater flexibility in sentencing particularly heinous offenders.

3. Clarifies Executive and Judicial Powers –

The ruling carefully distinguishes between:

• statutory remission;
• judicial sentencing powers; and
• constitutional clemency.

This preserves the constitutional balance between the judiciary and the executive.

4. Prevents Repetitive Constitutional Challenges –

By describing the petitions as an abuse of process, the Court discourages repeated litigation on issues already conclusively settled by Constitution Bench judgments.

5. Reinforces Constitutional Discipline –

The judgment reiterates that litigants must first exhaust appropriate statutory and constitutional remedies before invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32.

 

Broader Legal Impact

The ruling will influence criminal sentencing across India in cases involving:

• terrorism;
• multiple murders;
• exceptionally brutal crimes;
• offences attracting the death penalty; and
• cases where courts consider the death sentence excessive but ordinary life imprisonment inadequate.

Trial courts, High Courts, and the Supreme Court will continue to possess the authority to impose imprisonment for the remainder of the convict’s natural life in deserving cases, consistent with the principles laid down in Swamy Shraddananda and V. Sriharan.

At the same time, the judgment preserves the constitutional mercy jurisdiction of the President and Governors, ensuring that the constitutional framework governing clemency remains untouched.

 

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Ramasrey @ Fakkad v. State of Uttar Pradesh is a decisive reaffirmation of India’s established sentencing jurisprudence. By relying on the Constitution Bench ruling in Union of India v. V. Sriharan, the Court has once again confirmed that imprisonment for the remainder of a convict’s natural life, including sentences excluding statutory remission, is constitutionally valid.

The judgment clarifies that such sentences do not create a new form of punishment but merely regulate the manner in which life imprisonment is to be served in exceptionally grave cases. It also carefully distinguishes between statutory remission under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the constitutional clemency powers vested in the President and Governors, ensuring that the constitutional balance between judicial sentencing and executive mercy remains intact.

Beyond its immediate impact on the petitioners, the ruling strengthens judicial consistency, reinforces the doctrine of precedent, and provides greater certainty in criminal sentencing. It serves as a reminder that while Article 32 remains a cornerstone of constitutional justice, it cannot be invoked to bypass established statutory and constitutional remedies. Overall, the judgment further consolidates the Supreme Court’s approach to ensuring that punishment remains proportionate to the gravity of the offence while remaining firmly rooted in constitutional principles.