A view of the Supreme Court of India
| Photo Credit: Sushil Kumar Verma
The Supreme Court has highlighted the “crying need for a clear sentencing policy”, which should never be judge-centric, as society needs to know the basis of a sentence.
A Bench led by Justice M.M. Sundresh said sentencing a convict for a crime should not be a “mere lottery” or the “outcome of a knee-jerk reaction”.
“Unfortunately, we do not have a clear policy or legislation when it comes to sentencing. Over the years, it has become judge-centric, and there are admitted disparities in awarding a sentence,” Justice Sundresh observed in a recent judgment.
Unwarranted disparity in sentencing would be a violation of the fundamental right to fair trial, Justice Sundresh noted.
Judges’ thinking processes about suitable punishments could vary from person to person. The environment and the upbringing of a judge would also become the ultimate arbiter in deciding the sentence.
“A judge from an affluent background might have a different mindset as against a judge from a humble one. A woman judge might look at it differently, when compared to her male counterpart. An appellate court might tinker with the sentence due to its experience, and external factors like institutional constraints might come into play. Certainly, there is a crying need for a clear sentencing policy, which should never be judge-centric,” Justice Sundresh underscored.
‘Numerous factors at play’
However, Justice Sundresh also noted that following a uniform pattern of sentencing may not work in a diverse country like India, and may even turn out to be prejudicial. “When it comes to sentencing, there are various factors such as age, sex, education, home life, social background, emotional and mental conditions, caste, religion and community that constitute aggravating and mitigating circumstances,” Justice Sundresh observed.
The concept of “intuitive sentencing” is against the rule of law, the court said.
“A judge can never have unrestrictive and unbridled discretion, based upon his conscience formed through his understanding of the society, without there being any guidelines in awarding a sentence,” the top court judgment said.
The judgment urged the Centre to constitute a ‘Commission on Sentencing’ consisting of various experts and stakeholders. “We illustratively suggest members from the legal fraternity, psychologists, sociologists, criminologists, executives and legislators,” the judgment conveyed.
