Mandatory Sentencing Versus Discretionary Penalties
1. Introduction
Mandatory Sentencing
Definition: A sentencing framework where the law prescribes a fixed punishment for a particular offense, leaving no discretion to the judge.
Purpose: Ensures uniformity and deterrence for certain serious crimes.
Example: Section 302 IPC (murder) under certain circumstances may invoke the death penalty or life imprisonment as mandatory.
Discretionary Penalties
Definition: Judges have flexibility to decide the sentence based on circumstances of the case, character of the offender, and mitigating or aggravating factors.
Purpose: Provides justice tailored to individual cases.
Example: Section 323 IPC (causing hurt) allows punishment up to 1 year; judge decides actual sentence.
2. Legal Framework in India
IPC and CrPC: Contain provisions for both mandatory and discretionary sentencing.
Judicial Guidelines: Courts often interpret mandatory sentences narrowly to avoid disproportionate punishment.
Principle of Proportionality: Even with mandatory sentences, courts must consider the severity of the offense relative to the sentence.
3. Case Law Illustrations
Case 1: Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980)
Facts: Challenge to the constitutional validity of the death penalty as a mandatory punishment for murder.
Issue: Whether Section 302 IPC mandating death penalty violates Article 21 (Right to Life).
Judgment: Supreme Court held that mandatory death sentence is unconstitutional. Death penalty can only be imposed in “rarest of rare” cases.
Significance: Shifted death penalty from mandatory to discretionary, requiring judges to consider mitigating circumstances.
Case 2: Union of India v. V. Sriharan (2015)
Facts: Accused sentenced to death under TADA for terrorist-related murders.
Issue: Whether the court should exercise discretion in sentencing.
Judgment: Supreme Court emphasized that discretionary power must consider age, antecedents, and nature of crime. Death sentence not automatic; life imprisonment considered in some instances.
Significance: Reinforced judiciary’s discretion even for severe offenses.
Case 3: State of Maharashtra v. Gajanan S. (1990)
Facts: Accused convicted of rioting causing death under Section 147 and 302 IPC.
Issue: Whether mandatory life imprisonment should apply or discretionary leniency is allowed.
Judgment: Court held that for mitigating circumstances (first-time offender, minor role), life imprisonment could be modified or sentence reduced, showing scope of discretion in discretionary sentencing.
Significance: Shows discretionary sentencing balances justice with individual circumstances.
Case 4: Santosh Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (2011)
Facts: Accused convicted of multiple murders under IPC.
Issue: Whether death penalty should be imposed mandatorily.
Judgment: Supreme Court reiterated the “rarest of rare” doctrine. Even multiple murders do not automatically attract death; mitigating factors must be considered.
Significance: Strong precedent against mandatory sentencing for serious crimes.
Case 5: Kehar Singh v. State (1988)
Facts: Accused involved in conspiracy to assassinate the Prime Minister.
Issue: Whether mandatory death sentence applies for acts of terrorism causing public danger.
Judgment: Court allowed discretion based on role, intent, and context, awarding death penalty to principal conspirators but life imprisonment to minor participants.
Significance: Discretion allows proportionality in sentences even for grave crimes.
Case 6: Bachan Singh Doctrine Application
In multiple cases, courts have applied the principle that mandatory sentences without judicial discretion violate constitutional guarantees.
Examples include murder, terrorism, and narcotics offenses where mandatory minimums exist, but judges may reduce or modify based on mitigating factors.
4. Key Takeaways
Mandatory sentencing ensures uniformity but risks injustice if circumstances vary.
Discretionary sentencing allows courts to consider:
Age of offender
Criminal antecedents
Circumstances of the offense
Likelihood of reform
Supreme Court in India consistently favors discretion over rigid mandatory sentences for serious crimes.
“Rarest of rare” principle is the hallmark of discretionary capital punishment in India.
Modern trend: Even statutes prescribing minimum sentences often allow judicial discretion through special clauses.
RELATED Blog
0 comments