Supreme Court Ruling: Sessions Court Cannot Impose Life Imprisonment Without Remission

Supreme Court Ruling: Sessions Court Cannot Impose Life Imprisonment Without Remission

Date of Ruling: December 19, 2025 (as per news report) Court: Supreme Court of India Case Context: Appeal against Karnataka High Court order in a case involving a man convicted of torturing and murdering his wife (widowhood-related crime, convicted in 2014)

Key Facts:

• Ruling: Sessions Courts cannot impose a sentence of life imprisonment till the end of natural life (i.e., without any remission or commutation).
• Reason: Such a sentence violates the constitutional guarantee of the right to remission/commutation under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution of India.
• Power of Remission/Comutation: This power is vested exclusively in the President (Article 72) and Governors (Article 161), and cannot be taken away by a court through sentencing.
• Section 302 IPC: Provides for punishment of death or imprisonment for life. The Supreme Court clarified that “imprisonment for life” means life imprisonment subject to remission under the CrPC.
• Section 428 CrPC: Allows set-off of period of detention undergone during investigation/trial against the sentence.
• Section 57 IPC: Life imprisonment is treated as 14 years for calculation purposes (in case of remission).
• Precedent Cited: Union of India v. V. Sriharan (2016) – The Supreme Court held that life imprisonment without remission is not permissible unless specifically authorized by law.

Key Legal Principles:

• Constitutional Supremacy: Only the President/Governor can grant remission/commutation; courts cannot impose a sentence that completely removes this power.
• Alternative to Death Penalty: When death sentence is commuted to life, it must be life imprisonment with possibility of remission, not “rest of natural life” without remission.
• Sessions Court Limitation: A Sessions Court imposing “life imprisonment till death without remission” exceeds its jurisdiction and is unconstitutional.
• Karnataka High Court Order: The High Court had upheld the Sessions Court’s sentence of life without remission in this case → Supreme Court set it aside.

Important Terms Explained:

• Remission → Reduction of sentence by the executive (government) for good conduct.
• Commutation → Changing the nature of punishment (e.g., death to life imprisonment).
• Life Imprisonment → Imprisonment for the remainder of the convict’s natural life, but subject to remission unless specified otherwise.
• Life Imprisonment without Remission → A sentence that bars any early release → not allowed by Sessions Courts.
• CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure) → Governs sentencing procedures; Sections 428 and 432 deal with set-off and remission.
• IPC Section 302 → Punishment for murder: death or life imprisonment.

Outcome of the Judgment:

• The Supreme Court set aside the part of the sentence that imposed life imprisonment without remission.
• The convict will serve life imprisonment subject to the normal rules of remission/commutation.
• The ruling reinforces that courts cannot override the executive’s constitutional power of mercy.

This judgment reaffirms the balance of power between the judiciary and the executive in matters of remission and commutation in India.

Articles 72 and 161 of the Indian Constitution deal with the pardoning powers of the President and the Governor respectively. While Article 72 empowers the President to grant pardons, reprieves, respites, remissions, or to suspend/commute sentences in certain cases (including death sentences), Article 161 gives similar powers to the Governor for offences against laws under the state’s executive domain. These powers are wide but not absolute, and their exercise has been clarified through several landmark Supreme Court judgments.

Article 72 (President’s Power):

• • Applies to:
    1. Punishments by Court Martial.
    2. Offences against Union laws.
    3. Death sentences.
  • The President can pardon, commute, remit, suspend, or reprieve sentences.
  • Article 161 (Governor’s Power):
    • Governor can grant pardons, reprieves, respites, remissions, or commute sentences for offences against laws under the State’s executive power.
    • Cannot override President’s power in matters like death penalty (which falls under Article 72).

Key Case Laws:

1. Maru Ram v. Union of India (1980):
   • Held that clemency powers under Articles 72 and 161 are subject to judicial review if exercised arbitrarily, mala fide, or in absolute disregard of constitutional values.
2. Kehar Singh v. Union of India (1989):
   • Court ruled that the President can examine the merits of a case while deciding a mercy petition.
   • However, the President’s decision is not immune from judicial review.
3. Swaran Singh v. State of U.P. (1998):
   • Governor’s order of remission was quashed as it was passed without application of mind.
   • Reinforced that clemency powers must be exercised with due care and not arbitrarily.
4. Epuru Sudhakar v. Government of A.P. (2006):
   • Supreme Court clarified grounds for judicial review of pardoning powers:
     • Mala fide exercise.
     • Irrelevant considerations.
     • Arbitrary or discriminatory use.
5. State of Haryana v. Jagdish (2010):

Court held that remission rules framed under Articles 72/161 override Section 433-A CrPC (which restricts premature release).

Reaffirmed the absolute but reviewable nature of clemency powers.