The Supreme Court of India urged to the Centre to develop a comprehensive sentencing policy to standardize criminal case outcomes. This move aims to mitigate sentencing disparities and enhance judicial fairness. The Court emphasized the critical need for such a policy due to current inconsistencies affecting the justice system.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court recently directed the Central government to submit an affidavit within six months, addressing the feasibility of implementing a comprehensive sentencing policy for criminal offences.
The Bench, comprising Justices MM Sundresh and SVN Bhatti, expressed concern over the absence of a clear policy or law in this regard.
Read Also: Supreme Court Urges Delhi Government to Expedite Funding for High Court Infrastructure
The court noted,
“Sentencing has increasingly become dependent on the judge, leading to acknowledged inconsistencies in sentences. It emphasized that sentencing should neither be arbitrary nor a response to sudden impulses, as it is a crucial aspect of the Fundamental Rights protected under Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. Any unjust disparity undermines the essence of a fair trial and, consequently, justice itself.”
The court highlighted the complexity of the issue, emphasizing that it is the responsibility of both state and union governments to engage in comprehensive discussions and debates with all relevant stakeholders.
The court observed,
“The issue is highly intricate, requiring extensive dialogues and debates involving both state and central governments, along with all involved parties. It also proposed the idea of establishing a specialized Sentencing Commission, which would include a diverse group of experts and stakeholders, to utilize societal experiences for more informed decisions.”
According to the bench, the existing method of legislating sentences is deficient and marked by significant shortcomings.
The case in question involved an Additional Sessions Judge from Bihar who, suspended by the Patna High Court after he quickly convicted and sentenced a man to life imprisonment for sexual assault of a minor. The High Court, in its ruling, directed the trial court to conduct a fresh trial, while expressing disapproval of how the previous proceedings had been conducted, leading to the one-day sentencing.
The High Court also directed that the concerned judge should not be assigned trials with significant consequences and that he should undergo further training at the State Judicial Academy. The appeals against this High Court order filed by the original informant in the case and the special judge who had issued the one-day sentencing order.
The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the case, dismissed the appeals, observing that the judge had been treated leniently by the High Court.
Read Also: Supreme Court Questions Centre’s Decision to Extend Delhi CS Naresh Kumar’s Tenure
The court pointed out that,
“The appellant judicial officer is fortunate that no disciplinary measures were initiated against him. The court further noted that without any intended action, there is no need to consider hearing the appellant”
The Supreme Court observed,
“Throughout the trial, the accused was consistently denied the chance to properly defend himself or seek legal counsel, due to the judicial officer conducting the proceedings with excessive speed.”
The Supreme Court stated,
“Every trial is a quest for truth, and the Presiding Officer should ensure a fair environment for both the prosecution and the defence. The court expressed concern over the apparent rush in decision-making, noting it seems improbable to issue a 27-page judgment, containing 59 paragraphs, within half an hour, as happened in the first case and similarly in another. A defence lawyer cannot contend with the court itself; it is the duty of the court to maintain impartiality,”
This development highlights the judiciary’s proactive role in enhancing the legal infrastructure to uphold the rights of the accused while maintaining public trust in the legal system.