Why in News?
In Sunita Devi vs State of Bihar (2024), the Supreme Court urged the Centre to examine a national sentencing policy, observing that sentencing should not be a “mere lottery.”
What is Sentencing?
- Sentencing – It is the process through which courts determine the appropriate punishment for a convicted person, within the limits prescribed by law.
- Its objectives include deterrence, retribution, rehabilitation, reformation and protection of society.
As of October 2026, the pending court cases across all levels of the Indian judiciary has crossed 5.90 crore cases, as per the National Judicial Data Grid and parliamentary updates.
What are the Major Issues with India's Sentencing System?
- Arbitrary sentencing – Broad judicial discretion without a common framework results in inconsistent punishments for similar offences.
- Discriminatory considerations – Research on rape sentencing has identified instances where legally irrelevant factors, such as the complainant’s supposed chastity or subsequent marriage, influenced punishment.
- Constitutional concerns – Unjustified sentencing disparities raise concerns under Articles 14 and 21, which guarantee equality before law and protection of life.
- Inadequate consideration of alternatives – Courts lack a general framework for balancing imprisonment with probation, rehabilitation and other non-custodial measures.
- Increased appellate burden – Higher courts spend considerable time correcting excessively harsh or lenient sentences on a case-by-case basis.
- Weak empirical foundation – Sentencing decisions are not adequately supported by systematic research on deterrence, rehabilitation, prison capacity and actual outcomes.
What is the Existing Legal Framework for Sentencing in India?
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) – Section 258(2) provides for a separate hearing on sentence after conviction by a Sessions Court.
- Sections 401 and 402 of the BNSS – Provide for release of certain offenders on probation or after admonition, subject to statutory conditions.
- Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 – Sections 3, 4 and 6 provide for admonition, probation and special safeguards for eligible offenders.
- Soman vs State of Kerala (2012) – The Supreme Court recognised the competing objectives of sentencing and highlighted weaknesses in sentencing practices.
- Law Commission of India – Its 47th Report had raised concerns regarding sentencing disparities more than five decades ago.
How Can a Sentencing Council Function in India?
A Sentencing Council is an independent statutory body that develops evidence-based sentencing guidelines to promote consistency, transparency while preserving judicial discretion.
- Offence-specific guidelines – Classify offences according to culpability and harm, considering factors such as planning, violence, weapon use, victim vulnerability and physical or psychological injury.
- Indicative sentencing ranges – Establish a starting point and a permissible sentencing range within the limits prescribed by law.
- Individualised punishment – Adjust the sentence based on relevant aggravating and mitigating circumstances, including rehabilitation prospects and the offender's circumstances.
- National sentencing database – Use the National Judicial Data Grid's infrastructure to maintain anonymised data on offences, relevant factors and final sentences.
- Accountable judicial discretion – Require courts to consider the guidelines and provide reasons for departing from them, while allowing judges to decide individual cases.
- Parliamentary oversight – Establish the Council through legislation and subject its guidelines to parliamentary scrutiny.
|
Lessons India Can Learn from England and Wales
|
- The Sentencing Council was established under the Coroners and Justice Act, 2009, alongside a consolidated Sentencing Code.
- Its guidelines classify offences according to culpability and harm, prescribe starting points and sentencing ranges, and permit adjustments for aggravating and mitigating factors.
- India can adapt this model to structure judicial discretion without mandating identical punishments for every similar offence.
|
What are the Challenges in Establishing a Sentencing Council?
- Penal populism – Public pressure, particularly in cases involving sexual offences, may encourage disproportionately harsh punishments without sufficient evidence of deterrence.
- Judicial independence – Overly rigid guidelines could undermine judicial discretion and individualised justice.
- Federal concerns – Uniform guidelines may overlook differences in prison capacity and criminal justice administration across States.
- Mechanical compliance – Judges may follow checklists formally without improving the quality of sentencing decisions.
- Lack of reliable data – Developing effective guidelines requires comprehensive empirical research on sentencing practices and outcomes.
What is the Way Forward?
- Establish an independent, multidisciplinary Sentencing Council through legislation.
- Develop evidence-based guidelines following consultation with judges, prosecutors, defence lawyers, criminologists and prison administrators.
- Ensure that punishments are proportionate to the offence while preventing discrimination based on social or economic status.
- Strengthen probation, rehabilitation and other non-custodial alternatives for eligible offenders.
- Periodically review guidelines using sentencing data, prison capacity and evidence on deterrence and recidivism.
- Preserve judicial independence by making guidelines strongly presumptive rather than inflexible, with reasoned departures permitted.
What lies Ahead?
- A national sentencing framework can strengthen equality before law, judicial accountability and proportionality in punishment.
- India needs a system that ensures similar cases are treated according to consistent principles while allowing justified differences based on individual circumstances.
Reference
The Indian Express| Pendency and punishment
