In a landmark judgment that clarifies the limits of judicial sentencing power, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that Sessions Courts cannot impose a sentence of imprisonment for the rest of a convict's natural life without the possibility of remission. The apex court stated that this extraordinary power is reserved exclusively for constitutional courts — the Supreme Court and the High Courts.
The Constitutional Safeguard Against Absolute Sentences
A bench comprising Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and K Vinod Chandran delivered the ruling on December 20, 2025. The court emphasized that the power of remission or commutation conferred on the State is a constitutional guarantee that cannot be stripped away by a Sessions Court. The sentence of life imprisonment, while meaning the entire life, is always subject to the remission and commutation provisions under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution.
The bench explicitly noted, “The sentence of life imprisonment no doubt means the entire life, subject only to the remission and commutation provided under CrPC and also to Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution, which cannot be curtailed by a Sessions Court.” It further added that a Sessions Court, being a creation of the CrPC, cannot curtail the provisions of the very code that established it.
Evolution of the 'Life Without Remission' Doctrine
In the judgment authored by Justice Chandran, the court traced the legal evolution of the concept of life imprisonment without remission. The origin was linked to the Supreme Court’s 2008 ruling in the Swamy Shraddananda case. In that instance, imposing a standard life sentence would have resulted in the convict's release in 2009, which the court found inadequate for the gravity of the crime.
The judgment explained that an “alternative measure” was developed to break the standardization of sentencing in cases involving heinous, dastardly, and brutal crimes. While a life sentence literally denotes imprisonment until death, it practically operates as a term of 14 years with the government retaining the power of remission and commutation. To balance the need for proportionate punishment for society-shocking crimes while avoiding the irreversible penalty of death, the judiciary carved out this “middle ground.”
The principle was later reaffirmed and its scope defined by a Constitution Bench in the 2016 case of 'Union of India vs V Sriharan alias Murugan and Others', which concerned the assassins of former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi. The majority verdict in that case restricted the application of this alternative sentencing option only to the Constitutional Courts — the Supreme Court and the High Courts.
Case Background: A Heinous Crime in Karnataka
The Supreme Court's ruling came while hearing an appeal against a Karnataka High Court order. The case involved a man who was convicted for the brutal murder of a widow with five children on January 1, 2014. The victim, related to him by marriage, was set on fire for rejecting his lustful advances.
The trial court had sentenced him to imprisonment till the end of his natural life without any possibility of remission. It had also directed that the sentence already undergone would not be set off against the total term. The High Court later confirmed this conviction and sentence.
While upholding the conviction under IPC Section 302 (murder), the Supreme Court modified the sentence. The bench confirmed the punishment as “imprisonment for life,” thereby restoring the standard legal position where the state's power of remission or commutation remains intact. The court underscored that the trial court's order attempting to take away this power was beyond its jurisdiction.
This judgment serves as a crucial reminder of the separation of powers and the constitutional safeguards embedded in India's criminal justice system, ensuring that the door to clemency, however narrow, is never completely shut by a court not vested with that authority.
