Syllabus: GS2/Polity and Governance
Context
- In India, two people convicted of the same crime can be awarded different sentences, thus raising the need for uniform principles in sentencing.
Sentencing
- Sentencing is the process where the State translates prescriptive ranges, for instance, ‘up to ten years’ imprisonment, into a specific prison term, fines, probation or community sanctions for the convict(s).
- In India, this decision is left almost entirely to an individual judge’s or Bench’s discretion.
- Statutes set out the maximum, and sometimes the minimum sentences.
- There is no checklist of what should count as a serious aggravating factor, what counts as genuine mitigation, or how prior conduct and remorse should be weighed.
Need for a National Sentencing Policy
- Disparity in punishments: A differential judicial assessment could lead to different sentences for the similar offences committed by the individuals.
- Constitutional concerns: Articles 14 and 21 guarantees equality before the law and fair, just and reasonable procedures to every individual. Arbitrary sentencing undermines these constitutional guarantees.
- Limited guidance for judges: There is a lack of a comprehensive national framework to specify the impact of factors such as seriousness of the offence, previous criminal conduct, remorse and prospects of rehabilitation on the punishment.
- Neglect of alternatives: In the absence of clear guidelines, probation or other legally permissible alternatives to imprisonment might not be considered enough in the judicial system.
Supreme Court’s Observations
- In Soman v. State of Kerala (2012), the Supreme Court recognised the competing principles involved in sentencing and highlighted weaknesses in sentencing practices within the criminal justice system.
- In Sunita Devi v. State of Bihar (2024), the Supreme Court observed that sentencing should not be a mere lottery and directed the Centre to examine the feasibility of a comprehensive national sentencing policy, potentially through a Sentencing Commission.
The English Model: Sentencing Council
- England and Wales had established the Sentencing Council under the Coroners and Justice Act, 2009, under which:
- Courts assess the offender’s culpability and the harm caused by the offence.
- Guidelines prescribe a starting sentence and a category range for different combinations of culpability and harm.
- Courts adjust the sentence for aggravating and mitigating factors, guilty pleas and multiple offences.
- Guidelines structure judicial decision-making without requiring identical punishments in every superficially similar case.
Way Ahead
- Develop offence-specific guidelines: There is a need to establish a structured framework for evaluating culpability, harm, aggravating factors and mitigating circumstances.
- Create a national sentencing database: The National Judicial Data Grid’s infrastructure can be analysed to collect sentencing data and identify disparities across courts.
- Policy based on evidence: Study existing sentencing practices, prison capacity, rehabilitation outcomes, deterrence and public safety before finalising the framework.
Conclusion
- A national sentencing policy can help ensure that similar cases are treated as per the uniform principles, at the same time it allows justified differences in individual cases.
- The objective should be to make sentencing fair, transparent, proportionate and accountable, so that the punishment does not depend merely on the discretion of the judge hearing the case.
Source: IE
Previous article
Cabinet Secretariat
