Supreme Court calls for a sentencing policy to ensure uniformity

May 18, 2024 12:52 AM IST

A bench of justices MM Sundresh and SVN Bhatti emphasised the necessity of a such a policy, underscoring that sentencing should not be judge-centric and must avoid unwarranted disparities.

Unlock exclusive access to the latest news on India’s general elections, only on the HT App. Download Now! Download Now!

We will not go into that: Supreme Court to ED on Kejriwal’s ‘won’t have to return to jail’ remark

In criminal justice, a sentencing policy serves as a guiding framework for judges to determine appropriate punishments for convicted individuals. It outlines principles, guidelines and factors that courts should consider when imposing sentences, aiming to promote consistency, fairness, and proportionality in the administration of justice.

“Hearing the accused on the sentence is a valuable right…The real importance lies only with the sentence, as against the conviction. Unfortunately, we do not have a clear policy or legislation when it comes to sentencing. Over the years, it has become judge-centric and there are admitted disparities in awarding a sentence,” lamented the bench.

It added that there is a crying need for a clear sentencing policy, which should never be judge-centric as society has to know the basis of a sentence. “Sentencing shall not be a mere lottery. It shall also not be an outcome of a knee-jerk reaction. This is a very important part of the Fundamental Rights conferred under Articles 14 (equality before law) and 21 (life and liberty) of the Constitution of India. Any unwarranted disparity would be against the very concept of a fair trial and, therefore, against justice,” said the bench.

In the 90-page judgment, the bench highlighted the importance of considering the provisions of Section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which advocates for the release of convicts on probation of good conduct or after admonition. The court noted that this reformative approach should be prioritised before proceeding to sentencing, pointing out that ignoring these provisions renders them ineffective.

Emphasising the need for a balanced approach that includes both retribution and reformation, the court proposed the formation of a “sentencing commission” comprising legal experts, psychologists, sociologists, criminologists, executives and legislators to develop comprehensive guidelines.

The bench highlighted its insights into sentencing policies and the comprehensive models adopted by countries such as Canada, New Zealand, Israel and the UK while also citing previous reports and recommendations on criminal justice reforms by the Law Commission in 2003, underscoring the urgent need for a distinct sentencing policy in India. These countries have developed a structured framework for sentencing to assist judges, taking into account factors such as harm caused, culpability and antecedents of the offender, need for rehabilitation and need to protect the public.

The court asked the Centre to respond to the suggestion by filing an affidavit within six months that should address the feasibility of introducing a comprehensive sentencing policy, taking into account the need for guidelines that ensure judicial discretion is exercised uniformly and fairly.

The judgment, which came on a case of rape on a minor in Bihar in which the trial had commenced and concluded in a single day, took the occasion to highlight extensively that “every trial is a march towards the truth” and that “it is the primary duty of the court to search for the truth using procedural law as its tool”.

Nothing ‘exceptional’ in bail to Arvind Kejriwal: Supreme Court

“A fair trial is the heart and soul of criminal jurisprudence. The principle of democracy lies in a fair trial. It is not only a statutory right, but also a human right… The absence of a fair trial would seriously impair and violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution,” held the court.