A bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and S.V.N. Bhatti stressed the need for such a policy, highlighting that sentencing should not be centered around individual judges and must avoid unnecessary inconsistencies.
NEW DELHI: On Friday (17th May): The Supreme Court of India directed the Union Government to submit a report within six months regarding the feasibility of implementing a comprehensive sentencing policy. The objective is to ensure uniformity and fairness in the sentencing process. The court emphasized the need for such a policy to avoid judge-centric decisions and unwarranted disparities, stating that sentencing should not be a mere lottery.
A bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and S.V.N. Bhatti stressed the need for such a policy, highlighting that sentencing should not be centered around individual judges and must avoid unnecessary inconsistencies.
“Hearing the accused on the sentence is a valuable right… The true significance lies in the sentence, rather than the conviction. Unfortunately, we lack a clear policy or legislation regarding sentencing. Over the years, it has become judge-centric, leading to acknowledged disparities in sentencing,” the bench lamented.
A sentencing policy serves as a guiding framework for judges to determine appropriate punishments for convicted individuals. It aims to promote consistency, fairness, and proportionality in the administration of justice. The Supreme Court stressed that sentencing is of utmost significance, as it carries more weight than the conviction itself.
However, India lacks a clear policy or legislation concerning sentencing, leading to judge-centric decisions and disparities in sentencing outcomes. The court emphasized that a transparent sentencing policy is essential for society to understand the rationale behind a sentence and to ensure a fair trial, as guaranteed by Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
The bench emphasized the urgent need for a clear sentencing policy, stating that it should not be judge-centric, as society needs to understand the basis for sentencing.
“Sentencing should not be a mere lottery or a result of a knee-jerk reaction. It is a crucial aspect of the Fundamental Rights under Articles 14 (equality before law) and 21 (life and liberty) of the Constitution of India. Any unwarranted disparity undermines the concept of a fair trial and, consequently, justice,” the bench stated.
In their 90-page judgment, the bench underscored the importance of considering Section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which supports the release of convicts on probation for good conduct or after admonition. The court stressed that this reformative approach should be prioritized before sentencing, noting that ignoring these provisions renders them ineffective.
The court highlighted the need for a balanced approach that considers both retribution and reformation in sentencing. It emphasized the provisions of Section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which advocate for the release of convicts on probation or after admonition. The court suggested that these reformative measures should be given priority before imposing a sentence, as neglecting them renders the provisions ineffective.
“The essence of criminal jurisprudence lies in a fair trial, which is fundamental to the principle of democracy. It is not only a statutory right but also a human right… The lack of a fair trial would significantly impair and violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution,” the court held.
To develop comprehensive sentencing guidelines, the court proposed the establishment of a “sentencing commission” comprising legal experts, psychologists, sociologists, criminologists, executives, and legislators. This commission would draw insights from successful sentencing models adopted by countries like Canada, New Zealand, Israel, and the UK, taking into account factors such as harm caused, culpability, offender’s antecedents, rehabilitation needs, and public protection.
The Supreme Court referred to previous reports and recommendations on criminal justice reforms by the Law Commission in 2003 and highlighted the comprehensive models adopted by various countries. These countries have developed structured frameworks to assist judges in sentencing, promoting consistency and fairness.
