The Supreme Court affirms that convicts sentenced to life in minor gangrape cases have the right to seek remission, recognizing it as both a constitutional and statutory legal remedy.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India, on Tuesday, clarified that convicts sentenced to life imprisonment for gangrape cases involving minors have the right to seek remission, not only as a constitutional right but also as a statutory one. This landmark observation was made by a bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan while hearing a plea challenging the constitutional validity of Section 376DA of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Observations by the Supreme Court
The bench examined the matter from two perspectives:
- Prescribed Punishment: The punishment imposed by the Sessions Court under Section 376DA can be challenged before the High Court or the Supreme Court.
- Right to Seek Remission: The Court emphasized that even when life imprisonment is imposed, the convict retains the right to apply for remission under Article 72 (President of India) or Article 161 (Governor of a State). Moreover, this is reinforced by statutory provisions in each state, meaning the convict may also avail of state-level remission policies.
The Supreme Court clarified:
“The right to seek remission is not only a constitutional right but also a statutory right, and each state has its own policy of remission, which applies even when the sentence is imposed under Section 376DA or 376DB of the IPC.”
Understanding Section 376DA and 376DB
Section 376DA of the IPC prescribes punishment for individuals guilty of gang-raping a minor girl below 16 years of age, mandating life imprisonment or imprisonment for the remainder of the convict’s natural life. Similarly, Section 376DB deals with the gangrape of a minor girl under 12 years.
During the proceedings, the counsel representing an applicant seeking to be impleaded in the case argued that the term “shall” in Section 376DA indicates that the Sessions Court has no discretion but to impose life imprisonment for the remainder of the convict’s life.
Legal Implications:
This ruling underscores that life imprisonment does not strip convicts of all legal remedies. While Section 376DA prescribes a strict sentence, avenues for remission and pardon remain intact. The Court, however, kept open the legal question regarding the exclusive type of sentence under Section 376DA, noting that it could be addressed in an appropriate case.
Also Read: 2002 Nitish Katara Murder Case| Delhi HC to Hear Vikas Yadav’s Furlough Plea on January 8
The Centre supported the validity of Section 376DA, reinforcing the law’s intent to impose strict punishment for heinous crimes against minors. At the same time, the Supreme Court acknowledged the convict’s constitutional and statutory right to remission, ensuring a balance between justice for victims and legal rights of convicts.
“Therefore, keeping open the question of law to be advanced in an appropriate case,”
the bench said while disposing of the plea and application for impleadment.
Click Here to Read More Reports on the Supreme Court
