"Prisoners are not by mere reason of the conviction denuded of all the
fundamental rights which they otherwise possess." -
Supreme Court of India.
The concept of life imprisonment has long been a subject of legal, moral, and
societal debate, especially in the context of its constitutional validity. The
Indian judiciary has upheld life imprisonment as a key component of the penal
system, often invoked for serious crimes like murder, terrorism, and violent
offence. However, the imposition of life sentences raises complex questions
about human rights, reformative justice, and the role of punishment in a
democratic society.
Life imprisonment is one of the most severe forms of punishment in the Indian
criminal justice system, often used for crimes that shock the conscience of
society. While the judiciary has upheld its constitutional validity, questions
about the proportionality, reformative potential, and human rights implications
of such sentences continue to provoke debate.
At first the there is no term called life imprisonment in India. In 1800
there is a punishment called transportation of prisoners.In which persons who
have committed serious crimes is to be transported to other countries and work
on demand.However it is stopped on 1811 and later it is again restored due to
overcrowding in prison.This was later amended in 1955 and the term "Life
Imprisonment" was added.Section 45 of Indian Penal Code defines "Life" as Life
of the human beings,unless the contrary appears.
Definition of Life Imprisonment
KC Gajapati Narayan deo vs State of Orissa
The expression 'imprisonment for life' must be read in the context of Section
45, IPC. So reading, it would mean imprisonment for the full or complete span of
life. The provision in Section 57 that imprisonment for life shall be reckoned
as equivalent to imprisonment for 20 years is for the purpose of working out the
fraction of the terms of punishment. If such a provision had not been made it
would have been impossible to work out the fraction of an indefinite term.
Let's say a law states that a person sentenced to life imprisonment may be
eligible for parole after serving one-third of their sentence. Normally, this
would be hard to calculate because life imprisonment is for an indefinite period
(the person's whole life). However, Section 57 of the IPC says that life
imprisonment can be treated as 20 years for calculation purposes. So, to figure
out when the person might be eligible for parole, one-third of 20 years is
calculated as about 6.67 years. This makes it easier to apply the law for
situations like parole, remission, or calculating specific time periods related
to the sentence.
Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra and Others
It was held that unless the sentence of life imprisonment was commuted or
remitted by appropriate authorities as per relevant penal provisions of IPC or
CrPc, it was to be considered that a prisoner sentenced to imprisonment for life
is bound in law to serve the lifetime in prison.
This paper seeks to examine the constitutional validity of life imprisonment by
juxtaposing legal analyses with representation of case laws and scenarios. The
study aims to bridge the gap between legal theory and public discourse, offering
a comprehensive understanding of how life imprisonment is perceived,
administered, and challenged in both the legal system and popular culture.
Life imprisonment punishment as a boon:
Life imprisonment, often viewed as a severe punishment, can also be seen as a
boon in certain contexts. Unlike the finality of the death penalty, life
imprisonment offers individuals the opportunity for reflection, rehabilitation,
and redemption over time. It allows them to confront their actions, make amends,
and potentially transform into better individuals, which might be impossible
under a death sentence.
This period of incarceration also serves a chance for offenders to contribute
meaningfully through reformative programs, offering hope for personal growth and
a chance to eventually reintegrate into society. Thus, life imprisonment can act
as an opportunity for transformation.
Life imprisonment punishment as a Bane:
Life imprisonment can be viewed as a bane due to its potential for causing
mental and emotional suffering. Being confined for life can lead to feelings of
hopelessness, isolation, and a lack of purpose. It can strain resources, as
maintaining prisoners for decades places a significant burden on the state.
Additionally, life imprisonment may not always serve as a true deterrent to
crime.
And in some cases, it denies individuals the chance at redemption, leaving both
the prisoner and their families in a state of perpetual limbo. Thus life
imprisonment can be considered as a burden or boon.
Constitutional Analysis of Life Imprisonment Under Articles 14, 19 and 21
Article 14
Article 14 enshrines the principle of equality before the law, prohibiting
arbitrary state action. The doctrine of proportionality, central to Article 14,
mandates that punishment must align proportionately with the nature and gravity
of the offense. Life imprisonment, therefore, should only be imposed when it is
commensurate with the severity of the crime, ensuring that it does not devolve
into a disproportionately harsh or capricious sentence.
Arbitrary or mandatory impositions of life imprisonment contravene Article 14's
safeguard against discrimination and excessive punishment. The doctrine of
proportionality calls for a differentiated approach, particularly in cases
involving mitigating factors that might otherwise warrant a lesser sentence.
Life imprisonment, as a blanket punishment, risks violating Article 14 when it
is applied uniformly without due consideration of individual circumstances,
rendering it arbitrary and excessively punitive.
The landmark
Maneka Gandhi case (1978) revolutionized our understanding
of Article 14. The Supreme Court declared that the article is not merely about
formal equality, but encompasses a guarantee against arbitrary state action.This
interpretation opened new avenues for scrutinizing life sentences through the
lens of reasonableness and non-arbitrariness.
The Bachan Singh case (1980) further illuminated this terrain. While
primarily focused on the death penalty, its implications for life imprisonment
are profound. The Court emphasized that the rarest of rare doctrine applies not
just to death sentences, but implicitly to life imprisonment as well.This
judgment introduced a crucial element of proportionality. Life imprisonment,
being the second most severe punishment in India, must be imposed with the
utmost care and consideration. Any hint of arbitrariness in its application
could potentially fall foul of Article 14's promise of equality.
Article 19
Article 19 guarantees several freedoms, including the right to freedom of
movement and association, which are inherently restricted for those
incarcerated. Life imprisonment, while curtailing these freedoms, must do so in
a manner that respects the principles of reasonableness and necessity. Though
Article 19 does not explicitly apply within the prison context, judicial
interpretation has evolved to ensure that certain residual rights remain intact,
such as access to communication, rehabilitation, and limited association.
The judiciary has increasingly acknowledged that even prisoners retain basic
constitutional protections, albeit in a limited form. Life imprisonment,
therefore, must not impose unnecessary or disproportionate restrictions on these
residual rights, ensuring that it adheres to the constitutional mandate of
reasonableness enshrined in Article 19. Prolonged incarceration should be
balanced by measures that allow the individual to maintain a connection with
society and, where possible, to engage in rehabilitative opportunities.
Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar
This judgment set a crucial precedent: the threat of life imprisonment for
speech acts would only be constitutional if there was a clear and present danger
to public order. It exemplified how Article 19 could act as a shield against
overzealous application of severe punishments like life imprisonment.
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)
The Supreme Court's decision was unequivocal. It struck down Section 66A as
unconstitutional, deeming it too vague and a violation of Article 19. The Court
emphasized that the possibility of abuse of a law is an important factor in
determining its reasonableness.
Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, of 2000 made it a punishable
offence for any person to send offensive information using a computer or any
other electronic device.
Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator (1981)
This judgment further expanded the scope of Article 21. The Court declared that
the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and all that
goes along with it, including:
- The bare necessities of life
- Facilities for reading and writing
- Expressing oneself in diverse forms
These rulings underscore that life imprisonment doesn't strip away one's
fundamental rights. It's a powerful reminder that even behind bars, human
dignity must prevail.
International human rights Obligations and Comparative Jurisprudence
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
India's obligations under international human rights law, particularly the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), further reinforce
the requirement that life imprisonment must not constitute cruel, inhuman, or
degrading punishment. Article 7 of the ICCPR unequivocally prohibits such
treatment, and the Indian judiciary has often drawn upon these international
norms to guide its interpretation of constitutional provisions.
Comparative Constitutional Jurisprudence
A comparative analysis of life imprisonment jurisprudence reveals that many
constitutional democracies, including the United Kingdom, Canada, and the
European Union, have incorporated robust parole systems that temper the severity
of life sentences. For instance, in the UK, life imprisonment is often
accompanied by a minimum term after which the possibility of parole is
available, ensuring a balance between deterrence and the convict's reintegration
into society.
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, while retaining life imprisonment as a punishment,
must similarly ensure that its provisions for parole, remission, and clemency
adhere to international human rights standards and the evolving jurisprudence of
rehabilitative justice
The Human Rights Lens: Balancing Punishment and Dignity
Life imprisonment, viewed through the prism of human rights, presents a complex
picture. On one hand, it serves as a deterrent and protects society. On the
other hand, it raises questions about rehabilitation and the very purpose of
incarceration.
Consider that there are still persons who as (name changed), a life convict
learned to read and write in prison. "Article 21 gave me a second chance at
life," he says. "It's not just about staying alive; it's about finding purpose."
Constitutional challenges
The Shifting Sands of Supreme Court Rulings
In recent years, India's Supreme Court has grappled with this contentious issue,
issuing rulings that have sent shockwaves through the legal community. One such
landmark case is
Union of India v. Sriharan (2015), where the court held
that life imprisonment means imprisonment for the rest of one's natural life.
This decision effectively eliminated the possibility of remission for certain
categories of life convicts.
"Life imprisonment cannot be equivalent to imprisonment for 14 years or 20
years, rather it always means the whole of natural life." -
Supreme Court of
India.
Prisoners serving life terms are eligible for remission and premature after they
complete 14 years of their jail term.
Union of India v. V. Sriharan alias Murugan and Others
In 2015, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India ruled in the case
Union of India versus Sriharan that the President and the Governor have the
power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites, or remissions of punishment.The
court also ruled that state governments can exercise their power of remission or
commutation to life convicts, subject to the final orders that may be passed by
the court. Supreme held that the top court or the high court could pre-determine
a fixed sentence a prisoner must serve before he is considered for remission.
So for example, a constitutional court could decide that a particular prisoner
must serve at least 20 years before he is considered for remission.
The Separation of Powers Conundrum
At the heart of these challenges lies the fundamental principle of separation of
powers. Life imprisonment, with its far-reaching consequences, tests the limits
of this doctrine. The power to grant remission, pardon, or commutation of
sentences falls under the executive's prerogative, as outlined in Articles 72
(for the President) and Article 161 (for the Governor) of the Indian
Constitution.
However, remission cannot violate judicial sentencing directly. The courts have
clarified that remission does not annul the sentence imposed by the judiciary;
instead, it reduces the duration of the punishment as part of the executive's
prerogative.
The potential conflict arises when executive decisions is to grant remission and
which appears arbitrary or politically motivated, which could undermine judicial
authority.However, the judiciary retains the power to review executive actions,
including remission, if they are challenged as violating constitutional rights
or judicial principles
Conclusions and Recommendations:
The constitutional analysis of life imprisonment under Articles 14, 19, and 21
of the Indian Constitution reveals a delicate balance between upholding justice
and protecting fundamental rights. Life imprisonment, as the most severe form of
punishment after the death penalty, must be administered with careful adherence
to the doctrines of proportionality, non-arbitrariness, and reasonableness,
ensuring that it does not transgress constitutional protection.
India's international obligations, particularly under the ICCPR, reinforce the
need for a humane approach to life imprisonment. Comparative jurisprudence from
other democracies also highlights the importance of parole systems and
rehabilitative justice as essential components of a just penal system.
Recommendations on the constitutional validity of life imprisonment include Life
imprisonment can be aligned with Articles 14,19, and 21 by upholding fairness,
non-arbitrariness, and the right to dignity. Courts can ensure proportionality
in sentencing, distinguishing between cases to avoid excessive or inhumane
punishment.
The government may establish clear guidelines for parole and clemency to allow
for reformation and reintegration opportunities for those showing genuine
change. Regular reviews might be mandated to assess each case individually,
reducing the risk of perpetual imprisonment. Finally, transparent rehabilitation
programs can be prioritized, making life imprisonment a pathway to reform, not
mere prolonged detention.
Written By:
- K.P. Sachin Prasath, 2nd year students of B.A., LLB (Hons) at
Sastra University, Thanjavur.
- Sahana Shree, 2nd year students of B.A., LLB (Hons) at Sastra
University, Thanjavur.
- Abhishek Sreenivasan, 2nd year students of B.A., LLB (Hons) at
Sastra University, Thanjavur.
Please Drop Your Comments