Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of Life Imprisonment Without Remission for Remainder of Natural Life

The Supreme Court of India has upheld the constitutional validity of sentences directing imprisonment for the remainder of a convict’s natural life without remission. In a judgment cited as 2026 INSC 764, a bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by four sets of convicts, including death row prisoners whose sentences had been commuted by constitutional authorities or modified by courts. The ruling reaffirms that life imprisonment, in its truest legal sense, means incarceration until the last breath of the convict unless lawfully remitted by the appropriate government. This decision carries significant implications for the Indian criminal justice system, particularly for those convicted of heinous offences under what was then Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (now Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023).

Background of the Case

The lead petitioner, Ramasrey @ Fakkad, challenged the sentence imposed by the Allahabad High Court, which had modified his death penalty under Sections 364A, 302, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (corresponding to Sections 140(2), 103(1), and 238 of the BNS) to imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life. The petitioners collectively argued that the IPC recognized only two punishments for murder: death and life imprisonment. They contended that a sentence of imprisonment for the remainder of natural life without remission was not contemplated by the statute and effectively defeated the statutory remission powers available under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 473 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). The petitioners also raised concerns about their fundamental rights, arguing that such sentences violated constitutional guarantees.

Reliance on the V. Sriharan Constitution Bench Decision

The Supreme Court firmly rejected the petitioners’ arguments, holding that the issue stood conclusively settled by the Constitution Bench decision in Union of India v. V. Sriharan, (2016) 7 SCC 1. The bench observed that where a five-judge Constitution Bench has already declared sentences for the remainder of natural life to be valid, there was no scope for contending before a two-judge bench that such sentences are unconstitutional or that they trample upon statutorily granted rights. The Court went further, characterizing the petitions as a misuse, if not the abuse, of the process of law. The V. Sriharan ruling had approved the special category of punishment first evolved in the landmark case of Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State of Karnataka, (2008) 13 SCC 767. Under this framework, constitutional courts are empowered, in appropriate cases, to impose imprisonment for the remainder of a convict’s natural life as an alternative to the death penalty. This special category ensures that certain convicts whose crimes are exceptionally grave, but who may not deserve the ultimate penalty of death, remain incarcerated beyond the ordinary remission regime that typically applies to life convicts.

Scope of Section 45 and Section 53 of the IPC

The Court examined the meaning of life imprisonment under Sections 45 and 53 of the IPC (now Sections 2(18) and 4 of the BNS). It held that life imprisonment, read in conjunction with these provisions, means imprisonment for the entire remaining natural life of a convict, terminating only at their last breath. The Court noted a critical distinction: when the sentence imposed is life imprisonment without the categorical addition of the words “without remission,” the power of the appropriate government under Section 432 of the CrPC (now Section 473 BNSS) remains unaffected and such applications for remission remain maintainable. However, when a court specifically directs that the sentence shall be for the remainder of natural life without remission, executive remission cannot override the judicial mandate. This distinction is of paramount importance for convicts, their legal representatives, and prison authorities who must determine whether a particular life convict is eligible for early release.

Article 32 Is Not a Shortcut to Bypass Remedies

An important aspect of the judgment was the Court’s pronouncement on the invocation of Article 32 of the Constitution. While acknowledging that Article 32 remains the heart and soul of the Constitution, the bench emphasized that it cannot be employed to bypass statutory or constitutional remedies otherwise available under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution. The Court noted that several petitioners had not exhausted available remedies such as applications for remission or clemency before the President or Governor. The bench observed that the executive powers of the constitutional heads are unaffected and unencumbered by any other provision of the Constitution. Accepting the petitioners’ arguments would effectively mean the Court would sit in appeal over the exercise of executive power, which is not permissible. The early release policies framed by state governments remain the proper avenue for such relief in most cases.

Broader Implications for Sentencing in India

This judgment reinforces the settled position that courts possess the authority to impose a special category of life imprisonment that goes beyond the standard 14-year minimum typically associated with life sentences in public understanding. The Bombay High Court has similarly upheld stricter remission categories for life convicts in particularly egregious murder cases. Under the BNS, which replaced the IPC on July 1, 2024, life imprisonment continues to carry the same meaning. The transition from the old criminal codes to the new ones, namely the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, has not altered the fundamental nature of life imprisonment. Courts retain the discretion to award this special category of sentence in cases where the death penalty is commuted or where the facts warrant a punishment more severe than ordinary life imprisonment. The fresh trial proceedings ordered in other capital cases also demonstrate the judiciary’s balanced approach toward the most serious punishments under law. It is also worth noting that the bail framework under NDPS and other special laws similarly restricts early release in certain categories of offences, reflecting a broader legislative intent to ensure that serious offenders remain incarcerated for appropriate durations.

Key Takeaways

1. The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that sentences directing imprisonment for the remainder of natural life without remission are constitutionally valid, as settled by the Constitution Bench in Union of India v. V. Sriharan (2016) 7 SCC 1.

2. Life imprisonment under the IPC (and now the BNS) means imprisonment for the entire remaining natural life unless lawfully remitted. When the sentence specifically excludes remission, executive authorities cannot override the judicial mandate.

3. Article 32 cannot be used as a shortcut to bypass available remedies under Articles 72 and 161, including clemency applications to the President or Governor.

4. When life imprisonment is imposed without the express addition of “without remission,” the appropriate government’s power under Section 473 BNSS (formerly Section 432 CrPC) to suspend or remit the sentence remains fully intact.

5. The judgment serves as a clear warning that attempts to relitigate settled constitutional questions before smaller benches may be treated as an abuse of the process of law.