This article has been written by Oishika Banerji of Amity Law School, Kolkata. This article discusses the concept of life imprisonment in India, law governing the subject matter, and how it has evolved over a period of time. 

This article has been published by Sneha Mahawar.

Introduction 

Life imprisonment refers to incarceration for the rest of the convicted offender’s life. Under India’s legal system, life imprisonment plays a significant role as it has been categorised as a prominent form of punishment. Many believe that life imprisonment is less harsh and more humanitarian than the legal option of the death penalty as a form of punishment. But the idea that the penalty is humanitarian and only mildly severe is a far cry from reality. Life sentences have been the source of considerable pain and worry for people who are sentenced to them and their loved ones, as well as for those who are tasked with imposing or carrying them out. Therefore, it would be correct to state that this significantly recognised form of penance comes with its own set of pros and cons. This article explores the subject matter of life imprisonment with respect to India. In support of the discussion, precedent decisions of the Indian courts and existing statutes have been referred to as well. 

What is life imprisonment 

Life imprisonment is a legal penalty that is authorised by governments all over the world as a way to punish criminals for the rest of their lives. Due to a significant shift in punitive policies during the previous ten years, the world has moved away from the practice of the death penalty. As a result, life sentences as an alternative to the death penalty have become more common.

The two distinct sorts of punishment outlined by the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) are “imprisonment” and “imprisonment for life.” Life without parole is always followed by a harsh sentence. The maximum sentence that can be imposed for an offence is twenty years in prison (Section 57, IPC).  Because of how frequently this clause is invoked, most people consider life in prison to be 14 years. However, whether the prison term is 14 years, 20 years, 30 years, or until the convict’s death is left up to the state government. The length of the sentence is also determined by a person’s familial circumstances, state of health, and actions leading up to their conviction. The duration of confinement cannot be less than 14 years as per Section 433-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), although the sentence may be reduced under Section 342 of the CrPC.

According to a recent United Nations assessment based on target 16 of the Sustainable Development Goals, life imprisonment is the most common type of punishment in the world. This is mostly because most courts consider that because life sentences are reversible, they are preferable to the death penalty. Additionally, it has been reported that more than 5 lakh people are currently serving life sentences around the world as of the year 2014. This statistic represents an increase of nearly 85% over the statistics for the previous 14 years, which were only 2 lakh 60 thousand at the time they were recorded in the year 2000.

The Supreme Court of India defined life imprisonment as confinement for the balance of the convict’s natural life in the case of Bhagirath and Ors v. Delhi Administration (1985). If a person is sentenced to life in prison, he must serve a minimum of 14 years there and a maximum of their entire life.

There is still a misunderstanding over what a life sentence entails. The IPC mentions “imprisonment for life” as a type of punishment that is separate from “imprisonment,” which is of two sorts, namely:

1. Rigorous, i.e., requiring hard work.
2. Simple. 

However, it appears that the Supreme Court has blurred the line between life in prison and a strict or light sentence. The petitioner in Naib Singh v. State of Punjab (1983), a life convict, argued that because he had spent more than fourteen years of a prison sentence, his sentence should be regarded to have been reduced, and he should be released. The Court rejected his argument and determined that ‘removal’ had been replaced with ‘imprisonment for life’ in the 1955 revision to the IPC. It did not alter the character of the penalty as a result.

In the Pandit Kishori Lal ruling (1952), the Court stated that a prisoner sentenced to transportation would be regarded as if he were sentenced to life in prison with hard labor. Therefore, a person who is given a life sentence will also be considered as though they are receiving a harsh life sentence. The Privy Council in Pandit Kishori Lal’s case (1952) relied on Section 58 of the IPC, which indicated that a prisoner would be treated as though he were serving a sentence of harsh imprisonment while awaiting transportation. 

The Privy Council interpreted Section 58 of the aforementioned Code to suggest that the interim remedy would continue to be in effect as long as a prisoner was not transported. The judgment of the Council also goes against the findings of the Law Commission of India, which claimed that legislative clarity is necessary to address the essence of life imprisonment. Even though the Committee had stated in 1838 that life offenders should be condemned to hard labor for a period of time before moving on to hard labour, that was lucrative without any additional aggravations.

In 2016, the Supreme Court of India took into account this problem in the case of Ram Kumar Sivare v. State of Chhattisgarh and said that “let notice be issued in the matter restricted to the question of whether life imprisonment may be coupled with the requirement that such imprisonment is hard imprisonment.” However, the plea was later denied without a written ruling giving reasons. This seems to be a missed opportunity to decisively resolve this issue, even though the cryptic dismissal implies that a life sentence must be served with hard labor. The length of a sentence of life in prison is not specified under the IPC. Since the decision made in the landmark ruling of Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra (1961), courts have reaffirmed that life imprisonment means confinement for the rest of the prisoner’s life. However, erroneous concerns regarding this issue continue to exist.

This muddle appears to result from the variety of sources for sentence brevity.  Although it sometimes seems harmless, the maze of constitutional clauses, laws, rules, regulations, policies, and commands frequently allows for wiggle room. Without delving too deeply into the maze of sentence-shortening clauses, three distinct routes, namely, constitutional, legislative, and regulatory, are apparent. The President and the governor hold the broadest constitutional authority in regard to life imprisonment. This jurisdiction has a greater level of operation than statutory or regulatory powers, and the only way to limit it is through a constitutional amendment. Both the CrPC and IPC grant states and the central government more limited legislative capabilities. The regulatory scope of sentence compression is narrow under Indian criminal laws. According to prison manuals or regulations, prison administrators are given certain abilities that are typically restricted to remissions based on things like time served, general behaviour, and labour accomplished while incarcerated. These are subject to judicial and constitutional authority and are modifiable administratively.

It is interesting to note that without Section 433-A of CrPC, the Court found that there was little scope to stop inmates from leaving jail the day after they were given a life sentence. The Court deferred to the legislature’s decision even though it acknowledged that the fourteen-year timeframe had no clear justification. Additionally, it made it clear that Section 433-A couldn’t limit the President and governor’s constitutionally granted “untouchable and unapproachable” powers. It was evident after this ruling that life offenders could not benefit from sentence-shortening provisions until they had served at least fourteen years of their sentence.

Section 53 IPC, 1860

The position of Section 53 of the IPC is fairly obvious. The phrase “imprisonment for life” refers to incarceration in a prison until death. With regard to commutation, remission, or suspension of sentences by the appropriate government, various sections have merely stated fourteen or twenty years for the purpose of calculating fractional terms. A sentence of life in prison does not equate to a sentence of fourteen or twenty years.

Two further types of punishment, namely, whipping, which is now prohibited, and confinement in reformatories, were added to the section’s five existing types of punishment by later amendments. The term “transportation” has been replaced by “life-long imprisonment.” According to the Code, “life imprisonment” refers to “rigorous incarceration for life” and not “mere imprisonment for life.” Imprisonment can be divided into two categories:

1. Strict imprisonment, and
2. Simple imprisonment. 

In the case of strict or rigorous imprisonment, the culprit is put through hard labour such as grinding maize, digging the earth, drawing water, cutting firewood, bending wool, etc. In the instance of simple incarceration, the criminal is detained in custody without being required to perform any type of labour.

The maximum sentence that can be imposed for an offence is fourteen years in jail (Section 57, IPC). The minimum is infinite, but the lowest term actually designated for a certain offence is twenty-four hours (Section 510, IPC, read with Section 57 of CrPC). Sections 28, 29, 30, and 31 of the CrPC also discuss the severity of the penalty and the court’s authority to impose it. It is necessary to note that in no circumstance shall individuals subjected to consecutive sentences be condemned to jail for a term exceeding fourteen years, according to Section 31(2)(a) of the CrPC.

Evolution of life imprisonment in India

1. The British introduced the idea of prisoner transportation in India as a remedy to the death sentence or mutilation, which was primarily used throughout Mughal rule as well. The East India Company’s convicts were brought to Andaman Island. Section 53 of the IPC  was revised in 1955, adding life imprisonment as a punishment in place of transportation. In India, life imprisonment was therefore legalised in 1956 after being introduced in 1955.
2. Despite appearing to be a common punishment, “imprisonment for life” is a relatively new addition to the list of sentences outlined in the Indian Penal Code of 1860. It was introduced through an amendment in 1955 and took the place of the transportation penalty. Life in prison is only permitted for serious crimes, some of which have the death sentence as the only permitted punishment. However, unlike the death sentence, issues surrounding life imprisonment have not garnered widespread notice, polarised opinion, or found a place in legal academia.
3. In a 2015 Constitution Bench ruling (Union of India v. V. Sriharan, (2016)), the Supreme Court of India made significant observations about life imprisonment. The issue of whether judges could exclude the term from remission for a set amount of time while commuting a death sentence to life in prison came down to a 3:2 majority opinion. According to the ruling by the majority, the high courts or the Supreme Court could extend the sentence beyond remission for a set amount of time. This punishment was only used when the death penalty seemed too severe and life in prison felt too lenient. The minority held a different opinion, contending that judicially limiting remissions to life prisoners amounted to the invention of a new penalty. Additionally, it issued a warning that the distinction between the executive function of sentence implementation and the judicial function of sentence imposition was blurred by such sentences.
4. Several offences under the IPC are now punishable by “imprisonment for life, which shall mean the remainder of that person’s natural life,” thanks to Criminal Law Amendment Acts passed in 2013 and 2018. Although the definition of life imprisonment provided by the amendment Acts is compatible with how it is interpreted by courts, the change in the terminology introduces contradiction because it does not alter the wording used to describe all penalties within the ambit of “imprisonment for life”. Additionally, it causes a great deal of misunderstanding when it comes to using the sentence-shortening authority legally.

These changes imply that this punishment will probably be applied more frequently. Alongside this, life imprisonment presents a number of issues that have no clear solutions, and there is still much to learn about the same with respect to prison. We must carefully evaluate it given that it is widely used in the criminal justice system. The topic of life imprisonment is far from settled in this article. Instead, it is merely an effort to open a dialogue about the enduringly problematic nature of this punishment.

Laws governing life imprisonment in India

In India, there are various statutes with provisions for life-term penance. The following is a list of key provisions with analysis. 

Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 55 IPC

According to Section 55 of the IPC, the appropriate government may commute a life sentence without the prisoner’s consent to a sentence of imprisonment of either sort for a duration not to exceed fourteen years. The appropriate government has the last say on whether to allow the exercise of the right under the said provision or not. This provision does not stipulate that a life sentence entails a fourteen-year jail sentence or that a prisoner is to be automatically freed following the completion of a fourteen-year sentence. The appropriate government must commute the sentence, and for this reason, every state government has its own set of drafted rules.

Section 57 IPC

According to Section 57 of the IPC, a sentence of life in prison counts the same as 20 years of imprisonment when dividing up jail sentences into fractions. The phrase “life imprisonment shall be judged to be transported for twenty years” is not included in Section 57. For all intents and purposes, a life sentence must be viewed as imprisonment for the entirety of the convicted person’s natural life.

The scope and application of Section 57 of the IPC are constrained since this section may only be utilised to compute fractions of terms of punishment and for no other reason. Therefore, it cannot be understood to suggest that a 20-year sentence is equivalent to a life sentence. It does not necessarily result in a 20-year sentence. There is no automatic release after serving 20 years.

Therefore, the accused does not have the right to be let go after 20 years. Remissions granted in accordance with regulations set under the Prison Act, 1894, or the Jail Manual are essentially administrative orders of the appropriate government and are solely subject to its discretion under Section 432 of CrPC. According to the law, a person who receives a life sentence in jail may remain there for the rest of his or her life. 

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Section 432 read with Section 433 CrPC

No matter what is stated in Section 432, a person who is given a life sentence after being found guilty of a crime for which death is one of the punishments stipulated by law or a person whose death sentence has been commuted to a life sentence under Section 433, will not be released from prison unless and until he has served fourteen years of his sentence or if the offender has been convicted of a crime for which death is one of the punishments stipulated by law. Sections 432 and 433 of the CrPC provide the government the authority to postpone, send, or carry out the penalty, whereas Section 433A of the Code limits the government’s ability to reduce or substitute punishment in specific circumstances.

The government may impose complete or any portion of the punishment for which the person is prosecuted under Section 432 of the Code of 1973. According to Section 433 of the Code, the appropriate government may substitute a fine for a life sentence or a sentence of incarceration for a term that does not exceed a year. 

Section 433A CrPC

Section 433A was approved to prevent such offenders who are sentenced to death from receiving less-than-ideal parole before serving their full 14 years in solitary confinement. Only if the appropriate government approves a request under Section 432 or Section 433 of the Code will the reason for incarceration experienced by a charged as an under-trial prisoner against the sentence of life confinement be set off.

The Section’s objective is to establish a mandatory minimum sentence of 14 years in prison for anyone found guilty of an offence for which the death penalty is one of the permitted punishments or whose death sentence has been commuted under Section 433 to a sentence of life in prison. The non-obstante clause makes it clear that this minimum sentence is notwithstanding anything in Section 433 of the 1973 Code, which means that the power to suspend or remit a sentence under that section cannot be used to shorten the sentence of someone who has been found guilty of such an offence or whose death sentence has been commuted to a term of life imprisonment of less than 14 years.

By adding Section 433A to the CrPC, Parliament aimed to stop the arbitrary sentence reduction in 1978. As a result, lifers on death row who had their sentences commuted and those for whom the death penalty was an alternative sentencing set down by law would need to serve a minimum of fourteen years before sentence-shortening methods could be used. 

In the well-known case of Maru Ram v. Union of India (1981), a group of offenders sentenced to life imprisonment attempted to challenge the legitimacy of this clause through a series of petitions. In the instance of extremely serious offences, such as the murder of a minor boy, where the appellant was charged, the government will not, except for compelling reasons, decrease or commute the sentence under Section 433A of the CrPC. Since the provision is not retrospective, it was determined that it did not apply in cases where life in prison was sentenced for crimes committed before December 18, 1978. They could not ask the state for a directive for their early release on the grounds of pre-conviction detentions and remissions acquired by them in a case covered by Section 433A where the prisoners had not served the entire 14 years of their detention.

What is double life imprisonment

Double life imprisonment signifies the serving of two different sentences simultaneously. The concept of double life imprisonment can be better understood by referring to a case that has been subjected to the same. In 2015, the Bombay High Court, while deciding on the case of State of Maharashtra v. Vitthal Tukaram Atugade (2015), modified a 23-year-old youth’s death sentence to a sentence of “double life” imprisonment, which was to be served consecutively. Although the crime committed by the accused was heinous in nature, the Court determined that the case did not fall under the category of “rarest of rare” cases, and therefore the death penalty was not feasible on such grounds. This conclusion was reached by the Court after taking into account the cumulative effect of the facts and circumstances and weighing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances of the case. 

According to the circumstances of the aforementioned case, the accused, who is 20 years old, was charged in 2012 with raping and killing his 4-year-old niece. The prosecution presented evidence, and the accused admitted to having committed the crime when questioned. The accused also freely gave an extrajudicial confession in front of his uncle, which the lower court found valid. In 2015, the lower court executed him for the double crimes of rape and murder. The case appeared before the Bombay High Court, where it was requested to confirm the lower court’s decision and take appropriate further steps.

The Bombay High Court, through a bench led by Justices V.K. Tahilramani and A.S. Gadkari, mitigated the death sentence imposed by the lower court with a term of “double life imprisonment,” to be served concurrently, while partially accepting the accused’s appeal. Even while the bench upheld the accused’s guilt under Sections 376(2)(f) and 302 of the IPC, it was said that the case did not fall under the “rarest of rare” category for receiving the death penalty.

The Bench, with regard to the commutation of the death penalty to a sentence of double life imprisonment, observed that once the balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances is drawn and has been examined in light of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Court has no hesitation in concluding that this is not a case where the Court ought to have imposed the extreme penalty of the death sentence on the accused. Due to this, the Court also stated that they were unable to support the confirmation of the accused’s death sentence. Based on the observations of the Court, it was also noted that the accused’s behavior while the Court was hearing the current appeal made it clear that he had regret for the offence he committed. After considering the available evidence, the Court believed that the accused might not pose a threat to society at large if he was released from custody as he had served his time in prison.

Life imprisonment as an alternative to the death penalty

The death penalty, sometimes known as capital punishment, is a punishment meted out to those who have committed grave crimes. As part of the death penalty, the life of the offender is terminated by hanging him or through other comparable techniques. While some nations impose the death penalty for crimes that are seen as inhumane, there are still some, including United States citizens, who think that the death penalty is an egregious violation of a person’s human rights and does not serve the goal of reformation.

Because even the accused is regarded to be covered by the human rights law of that particular state, several jurisdictions currently grant life imprisonment to offenders who have committed heinous crimes. This is done in order to safeguard the accused’s right to life. Additionally, the UN and other welfare groups oppose the death penalty since it gives the offender a free pass from all of his wrongdoings through the straightforward and painless punishment of death, rather than serving the intended purpose of punishing him.

The method used to impose the death penalty is nevertheless a source of worry. After upholding the constitutionality of the death penalty in Bachan Singh’s case in May 1980, the Supreme Court of India laid down a framework to consider while deciding between a death sentence and a life sentence. According to the framework, CrPC regards life imprisonment as the standard sentence, and Section 354 (3) of the 1973 Code makes life in prison equal to the death penalty.

The death penalty may be imposed in the “rarest of rare situations.” This framework also specified that while deciding whether to impose the death penalty, judges must take into account both the mitigating and aggravating circumstances surrounding the crime and the accused. Reformation was viewed as one of the mitigating considerations, and it was the prosecution’s responsibility to demonstrate that the defendant could not be changed. Although the framework requires that both the offence and the accused be taken into account before pronouncing the death penalty, this has not always been the case in recent years.

Concerns about the death penalty being handed down primarily based on the crime component while ignoring the accused have been voiced over the past few years. This indicates that the circumstances of the accused were not appropriately taken into account when the death penalty was awarded; just the brutality of the crime was taken into account. Many accused people come from disadvantaged backgrounds and lack adequate legal counsel, making it difficult for any aspects of their lives to be brought up in court. The Supreme Court has brought up this matter repeatedly, and it is currently considering establishing rules for examining the process of imposing death sentences as well.

Pappu v. the State of Uttar Pradesh (2022)

1. In the recent case of Pappu v. the State of Uttar Pradesh (2022), the Supreme Court commuted a man’s death sentence to life in prison for the rape and murder of a seven-year-old child. The verdict could set an important precedent for the opposition to the death penalty. The Apex Court modified the death sentence to life in prison with the restriction that he shall not be entitled to “premature release or remission before suffering actual incarceration” for a period of 30 years. 
2. The Supreme Court warned the trial judges not to be persuaded to impose the death penalty only because of the horrifying nature of the crime and its negative effects on society. They should also take into account the defences for life in jail.
3. In reference to the development of criminological principles, the Supreme Court claimed that criminology has expanded to take into account the “protection of human life” ethos. Penology is a branch of criminology that examines the theories and methods used by diverse cultures to suppress criminal activity and appease the public by providing proper care for those who have committed crimes. The Court also noted that the death penalty acts as a deterrence and a “response to society’s need for appropriate retribution in appropriate situations.”
4. Penological principles have also “developed to balance the other obligations of society, i.e., of saving the human life, be it that of the accused, unless termination thereof is inevitable and is to serve the other societal reasons and collective conscience of society.”

The below-mentioned arguments are advised to be seen from the lens of life imprisonment as it is the obvious alternative to the death penalty. Therefore, arguments in favor of the death penalty stand against life imprisonment, and the one that is against the death penalty stands in favor of life imprisonment. 

Arguments in favor of the death penalty

Retribution

People should receive their just rewards in proportion to the seriousness of their crimes, according to one of the fundamental tenets of retribution. According to this reasoning, true justice necessitates that wrongdoers endure pain and suffering that is commensurate to the offence.

Deterrence

It is frequently defended that executing criminals who have been found guilty of murder will stop future murderers from killing people. The death sentence is frequently defended as giving victims’ families closure.

Arguments against the death penalty

Deterrence ineffective 

The statistical data does not support the effectiveness of deterrence. Since 2013 (Section 376A of the IPC), the death penalty has been authorised in rape cases. Despite this, rapes continue to occur, and in fact, their brutality has multiplied. This makes it necessary to consider whether the death sentence is a powerful deterrent against crime.

Execution of the innocent 

The most prevalent defence against the death penalty is that, sooner or later, innocent individuals may perish as a result of errors or weaknesses in the legal system. Amnesty International claims that the possibility of putting the innocent to death will never be totally eradicated as long as human justice is subject to flaws. In the majority of civilised nations, the use of death as a form of punishment has been abolished.

No rehabilitation

The death penalty does not allow the prisoner to be rehabilitated and integrated back into society.

Life imprisonment and human rights 

Inmates’ rights to have a family, to be private, to enjoy a social life, and other freedoms are typically curtailed by life sentences. Fundamental rights, however, cannot be taken away by any person or group. Every individual has the right to enjoy these freedoms since they were born as people, regardless of their nationality, race, sex, or social, political, or economic status. These freedoms are known as human rights. Human rights include the following, namely, the right to life, the right to dignity, the right to an education, the right to a fair trial, the right to asylum, the freedom of religion and thought, and the right to be treated equally before the law. Thus, human rights cannot be taken away from any individual, including any type of prisoner, no matter how heinous their crime.

Over 53% of India’s convicted criminals are serving life sentences, according to the latest statistics issued by the National Crime Records Bureau of India in 2019. Such enormous numbers result in overcrowding and a lack of space in jails. There are also several reports of detainees’ human rights being violated. Compared to other inmates, those who have been given life sentences may have more of their rights restricted. Analysis of the rights of imprisoned criminals and their human rights has also been explored from a human rights perspective. By implementing imprisonment in this manner, human rights are infringed. 

Prisoners are not exempt from the entitlement to human rights that everyone else has. All convicts are expected to live honorable lives and receive respectful treatment. The prisoners must have access to education, proper medical care, enough food, and clean water, among other things. Prisons nowadays are designed with the goals of both protecting society and helping inmates change. The inmates should have adequate resources and a secure environment to promote their overall growth. As much as possible, physical or mental suffering and cruelty should be avoided. However, the circumstances are different in real life. In jail, the inmates experience several forms of horror. The prisons where the inmates must reside in India are in poor condition. Overcrowding, poor funding, brutality, torture, and discrimination, as well as inadequate food and water supplies, are some of the conditions that convicts are forced to endure.

Prisoners in India are not an exception to the generalisation that life in jail is miserable. In prison, the inmates experience numerous terrifying situations. The fundamental principles guiding the prisoners’ detention are:

1. For the sake of societal security, to prevent convicted criminals from having any additional opportunity to damage society.
2. To instill terror in the prisoners’ minds to deter them from committing the same acts again.
3. To transform the prisoner into a better version of themselves and a valuable contributor to society upon release. The third concept, however, is rarely realised in everyday life.

International law’s take on life imprisonment’s impact on human rights

The sentence of life in jail does not, by itself, violate any laws. On the other hand, there are some restrictions on its application and scope. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and the United Nations Human Rights Committee have both stressed the possibility of release for convicts serving life sentences. The possibility of release ought to exist both in theory and in practice.

Human rights law permits life imprisonment, which is how many nations utilise it to punish some of the most egregious offences. International human rights legislation has established applicable restrictions, despite the fact that each country may have its own method of penalty implementation. Even though life in prison is a common penalty in many nations and jurisdictions around the world, there are issues and controversies surrounding it. Many nations that have replaced the death penalty with life in prison are getting flak for it, and in the European legal system, it is forbidden by Protocol 13 of the ECHR.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) gave the rights to human dignity, the prohibition of torture, and cruel, inhuman, and humiliating treatment or punishment significant global significance as principles guiding the legislation of prison conditions. Since it went into effect in 1976, the ICCPR has played a significant role in recognising prisoners’ rights. According to Article 7 of the ICCPR, no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one may be the subject of medical or scientific experiments without his or her full consent.

Children who commit crimes must be kept apart from adults and treated according to their age and status. The United Nations Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT), which went into effect in 1987, reiterates the ban imposed by Article 7. UNCAT is still not ratified by India. According to Article 37 of UNCAT, no child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, barbaric, or degrading treatment or punishment. Crimes committed by those under the age of eighteen are not subject to the death penalty or life in prison without the chance of parole.

In the historic case of Vinter and others v. United Kingdom (2013), the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) determined that a life sentence had to be reducible, or in other words, there had to be a chance of the prisoner’s release and the opportunity for a sentence review, in order to remain compatible with Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Landmark judgments on life imprisonment 

To understand the concept of life imprisonment, certain precedents can be referred to in order to understand on what basis courts of law have subjected the accused individual to life imprisonment. It is also clear to the reader by now that life imprisonment can only be granted if certain kinds of offences have been committed by the offender as provided under the criminal laws of India. Keeping the same in mind, certain cases have been discussed hereunder, specifically focusing on the reasoning of the judges in resorting to life imprisonment.  

State of Haryana v. Raj Kumar @ Bittu (2021)

1. The Supreme Court has clarified the governor’s and the state government’s authority to provide remission to prisoners serving sentences in a bench composed of Justices Hemant Gupta and AS Bopanna. The Bench ruled that a prisoner who has served 14 years of a life sentence for an offence for which death is one of the punishments may be granted remission under Sections 432, 433, and 433A of the CrPC. However, under Article 161 of the Constitution, the governor has the authority to act on the advice and recommendation of the state administration in the instance of a convict who has served less than 14 years of their sentence.
2. In order to benefit from the policy of remission established by an appropriate government under Section 432 of the Code in light of the superseding provision of Section 433 A of the Code, a prisoner must serve a minimum of 14 years in prison without remission for an offence that carries a death sentence. The governor’s authority to commute sentences or grant pardons, however, is unaffected by these limitations or restrictions. In accordance with either Section 432 of the 1973 Code or Article 161 of the Constitution, the state government may establish a policy for the granting of remissions.
3. In view of Section 433 A of the CrPC, the Bench distinguished between the rights of the state government and the governor. A non-obstante clause in Section 433 A of the Code states that no person shall be released from prison until they have served at least 14 years in custody. This restriction prevents the appropriate government from suspending a life sentence imposed on someone who has been found guilty of an offence for which death is one of the permitted punishments. Therefore, the state government has the authority to release a prisoner after 14 years of actual imprisonment on behalf of the appropriate government.

On the other hand, the governor’s authority is unrestricted as to the length of the prisoner’s actual incarceration, even though it is exercised with the assistance and counsel of the state. As a result, if a prisoner has served more than 14 years of actual imprisonment, the state government, as the appropriate government, is competent to issue an order for premature release. However, if the prisoner has not served 14 years or more of actual imprisonment, the governor has the authority to grant pardons, reprieves, respites, and remissions of punishment, as well as to suspend, remit, or commute the sentence of any person who violates the restrictions imposed under Section 433 A of the 1973 Code. Such power is in the exercise of the power of the sovereign, though the governor is bound to act on the aid and advice of the state government.

Sahib Hussain @ Sahib Jan v. State of Rajasthan (2013)

1. The present case of Sahib Hussain @ Sahib Jan v. State of Rajasthan (2013) that appeared before the Apex Court of India is a classic case of commutation of punishment from death to life imprisonment. 
2. One cannot ignore that life imprisonment typically translates to a dozen years of imprisonment in the context of Indian criminal law, which punishes murder, and that it may be seriously questioned whether the only alternative will be an adequate replacement for the death penalty. Five years after the judgment delivered in Jagmohan’s case (1972), Section 433A was added to the Code of Criminal Procedure (1973), imposing a restriction on the power of remission or commuted sentence. 

In the Bachan Singh case (1980), which was decided after the introduction of Section 433A, another Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court noted that the only thing that Section 433A changed was the fact that, in the majority of cases, imprisonment for life amounted to twelve years of imprisonment before its insertion and fourteen years of imprisonment after its insertion. However, it is still true that this cannot be regarded as a suitable alternative to the death penalty in the instance of Jagmohan (1972).

3. One of the prime issues before the Court was whether there was any legal provision that allows a life sentence without any formal clemency by the appropriate government to be automatically treated as one for a set amount of time.

• The Indian Penal Code, 1860, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the Prisons Act, 1894 do not contain any such clauses. Prima facie, a sentence of life in prison or life in transportation must be interpreted as a sentence of life in transportation or life in prison for the entirety of the offender’s remaining natural life. However, the Prisons Act of 1894 solely addresses the regulation of prisons and the care of convicts housed there; it does not grant any authority the jurisdiction to commute or remit sentences. The state government is given the authority to adopt rules, including those pertaining to awards for good behaviour, under Section 59 of the Prisons Act, 1894. As a result, the rules promulgated under the Act should be interpreted in accordance with its purview.
• According to the aforementioned regulations, a release requires an order from the appropriate government pursuant to Section 401 of the CrPC. The Court also emphasised that no other regulation had been made known to them that would grant an inviolable right to an unconditional release to a prisoner sentenced to transportation for life upon completion of a specific term, including remissions. The Prisons Act’s regulations prohibit substituting a lesser punishment for a life sentence of transportation.

The matter of remission is solely the responsibility of the appropriate government, and in this case, it is acknowledged that despite taking some actions under Section 401 of the CrPC, the appropriate government did not commute the entire term. Since the petitioner has not yet obtained any right to release, it was decided to retain the same.

Swamy Shraddananda@Murali v. the State of Karnataka (2008)

1. The questions that the Supreme Court of India had approached in the present case of  Swamy Shraddananda@Murali v. the State of Karnataka (2008) were as follows: 

• How would the sentence of imprisonment for life work out in actuality?
• What is the surety that the sentence awarded to the convict after painstaking and anxious deliberation would be carried out in actuality?
• How can the sentence of life imprisonment (to the end of its natural lifespan) imposed on a criminal as an alternative to the death penalty be distinguished from the regular life sentence imposed as the sentence of first resort?

2. According to the facts of the case, the Court was to believe that a sentence of life in prison, as defined in Section 45 of the IPC, would be more reasonable and appropriate. The Court also believed that the death sentence imposed by the trial court and upheld by the High Court needs to be replaced with a sentence of actual life in prison or, at the least, one that lasts for a lot longer than fourteen years. The sentence given to the criminal may be imprisonment till his last breath or, if life permits, imprisonment for a duration of not less than twenty, twenty-five, or thirty years, as stated in a court’s ruling. But after the verdict is rendered and signed, the executive is in charge of carrying out the punishment, and this is done in accordance with other legal regulations. By applying various types of remission, the sentence of life in prison will not, in actuality, be the standard life term, which equates to no more than fourteen years.
3. The solution lies in removing this standardisation, which in reality equates a life sentence to little more than 14 years in jail, and in making it plain that a life sentence imposed in lieu of the death penalty will be severely enforced in accordance with the Court’s instructions. In order for the punishment of life imprisonment, which was awarded in place of the death penalty, to be carried out as ordered by the Court and to be followed in appropriate cases as a uniform policy by both the Supreme Court and the high courts, which are the superior courts in their respective states, the Apex Court, in light of this case, therefore, decided that it must establish a good and sound legal basis for doing so.
4. It is also widely accepted that Section 57 of the IPC in no way restricts the sentence of life in prison to a maximum of 20 years. According to Section 57, which is exclusively used to calculate fractions of sentences, a life sentence counts the same as 20 years in jail.
5. The Court decided that it may be tempted and be persuaded to support the death penalty if the Court’s options are only two, namely the death penalty or a sentence of imprisonment, for all intents and purposes, of not more than 14 years. Expanding the options and assuming responsibility for what, in fact, rightfully belongs to the court, i.e., the significant time period between 14 years in jail and execution, would be a lot more just, reasonable, and proper. It should be noted that the Court had decided to choose the expanded option partly because, given the circumstances of the case, a sentence of 14 years in jail would be completely ineffective.

Recent developments in the law of life imprisonment in India

The 2013 and 2018 Criminal Law Amendment Acts, as well as the Supreme Court’s ruling in Union of India v. V. Sriharan (2016), have all had an impact on two kinds of lifters in particular.

1. One group includes people who have received a life sentence in accordance with the 2013 and 2018 Criminal Law Amendment Acts. The sentence wording “imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the balance of that person’s natural life” has been adopted by Parliament through these revisions. The phrase “which shall constitute imprisonment for the remainder of that person’s natural life” is not clear in legal terms. 

What is the issue if this phrasing is simply taken as adhering to the Supreme Court’s understanding that “life imprisonment” means being imprisoned for the term of the prisoner’s natural life? If this is merely understood as clarifying, then the law is not uniform. In fact, the terms “imprisonment for life” and “life imprisonment,” which shall mean imprisonment for the term of that person’s natural life, are used interchangeably for various offences in both the 2013 and 2018 amendments. If the latter is intended to generate a sentence that is fundamentally different from “imprisonment for life,” it lacks legislative support because it does not change the substance of Section 53 of the IPC.

Additionally, because it makes no mention of their repeal or exclusion, the application of sentence-lengthening clauses is left in a precarious position. Despite the fact that there is a legal prohibition against doing so, it is unlikely that governments or prison administrations will adopt this stance given the phrase “shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person’s natural life.” A lot of unnecessary litigation could be prevented if it were made clear that life offenders sentenced under these modifications would also be eligible for sentence-shortening measures.

2. Prisoners whose death sentences have been commuted by a court of law to life in prison fall under the second group. In certain circumstances, judges had to decide between the death penalty and life in prison because they thought the former was an excessively severe punishment. Courts have ruled that in some situations, it would be within their discretion to forbid statutory and regulatory sentence shortening for a specific time. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court confirmed the high courts and its authority to restrict statutory and regulatory sentence shortening in 2015 by a 3:2 majority (Union of India v. V. Sriharan (2016)). The judges who made up the minority dissent had argued that this prohibition on remission would amount to the creation of a new punishment and would be illegal.
3. Old concerns regarding life imprisonment have been revived as a result of the Criminal Law Amendment Acts and the majority ruling in Sriharan (2016). Although the goal appears to be to make life in prison harsher and longer than it is now considered to be, this comes at a significant cost to the consistency and certainty of criminal sentencing. Though there is little sympathy for those who have been found guilty under the Criminal Law Amendment Acts or who are anticipating a sentence under Sriharan’s case (2016), the whims of these new sentencing guidelines run the possibility of creating a licence for this group of inmates’ rights to be ignored.
4. The legal positions stated in Pandit Kishori Lal (1952), Gopal Vinayak Godse (1961), Maru Ram (1981), Ratan Singh (1979), and Shri Bhagwan (2001), as well as the questionable manner in which remission was actually permitted in cases of life imprisonment, present a compelling argument for creating a special category for the extremely rare instances in which the death penalty may be replaced by the punishment of life imprisonment or imprisonment for a term longer than fourteen years, and for exempting that category from the application of the death penalty. 
5. The question of justice arises when life imprisonment is subjected to remission in cases where an individual or a group of individuals have committed an offence that is gruesome enough to not make them eligible for remission. A similar instance was noticed in the Bilkis Bano case (2022).  

A special CBI court in Mumbai had sentenced the defendants to life in jail for gang-raping and killing seven members of Bilkis Bano’s family in January 2008. Their conviction was upheld by the Bombay High Court. The crime, which took place during the riots in Gujarat in 2002, involved the gangrape of Bilkis Bano and the killing of 14 members of her family, including her 3-year-old daughter, in a racial attack. The only person who survived the crime was Bilkis. The investigation was turned over to the CBI, and the Supreme Court ordered that the trial be moved from Gujarat to Maharashtra. 

All of the prisoners were released from the Godhra jail on August 15, 2022, when the Gujarat government gave them remission. The Gujarat government was determined to be the appropriate government to examine the remission in the case by the Supreme Court in May 2022, and the Court ordered that the remission applications be decided within two months. There was a great deal of outrage about these prisoners’ early release. The remission granted by the Gujarat government to 11 convicts in the Bilkis Bano case has been challenged before the Supreme Court of India. The question as to whether the criminals have truly repented or not remains, thereby highlighting the fact that remission in cases of life imprisonment has to be exercised rationally and judiciously. 

Conclusion 

One cannot deny that life imprisonment is indeed one of the harshest types of punishment resorted to in India. The long history of British colonialism in India is deeply entwined with the practice of life in prison. The idea of moving captives was introduced by the British. Later, the statute was changed, and life in prison was replaced with transportation. In India, the legal doctrine and practices surrounding life in prison are anomalous and unjustified. Whether life in jail is a simple or strict sentence and what it means for the convicts is ambiguous. The Court’s stance in several decisions, including Sriharan (2016), is damaging to those who have been given life sentences and violates their right to remission. It is extremely clear that the judiciary and the executive branch do not trust one another and do not work together in this situation. There is a propensity to rely on retributive justice and the deterrent approach to criminology, as seen by the trend towards harsher sentences and the granting of life imprisonment for a predetermined period of time without the option of release. In particular, India still has a long way to go, and the judiciary as well as the executive branch of the government should develop specific regulations regarding life imprisonment. Any ambiguity or contradiction in this regard needs to be clarified and resolved at its earliest.

References

• https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340023927_Life_Imprisonment_Without_Prospect_of_Release_Comparative_Remarks_from_a_Human-Rights_Perspective
• http://docs.manupatra.in/newsline/articles/Upload/68B9D2DB-6F2C-459F-9E48-34A8CE6B307F.pdf
• https://law.unimelb.edu.au/data/assets/pdf_file/0011/3919241/Kalita_Himangshu-and-Pathak_Ananya.pdf

---

Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/lawyerscommunity

Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.