Sentencing Reform And Preventive Justice Measures

04 Oct 2025 --
0 Comments

1. Sentencing Reform – Meaning and Need

Meaning:

Sentencing reform refers to changes in laws, policies, and judicial practices that determine how punishment is imposed on offenders after conviction. It aims to make sentencing fair, proportionate, uniform, and rehabilitative, rather than purely retributive.

Need for Reform:

Traditionally, Indian criminal law gives wide discretion to judges in deciding sentences. For example, Section 302 IPC allows both death penalty or life imprisonment for murder — leading to inconsistency and arbitrariness. Sentencing reform seeks to:

Introduce consistency and proportionality in punishment.

Reduce judicial arbitrariness.

Ensure that sentences serve goals of rehabilitation and deterrence.

Align punishment with human rights standards and constitutional values under Articles 14 and 21.

2. Preventive Justice Measures – Meaning

Meaning:

Preventive justice (or preventive detention and measures) refers to actions taken before a crime occurs, aimed at preventing potential offenses or threats to public order. It is not based on guilt but on anticipation of future conduct.

Examples include:

Preventive detention laws (e.g., National Security Act, 1980)

Bail laws and anticipatory bail (Sections 436–439 CrPC)

Probation and parole systems (Probation of Offenders Act, 1958)

Constitutional Basis:

Preventive detention laws are recognized under Articles 22(3)–(7) of the Indian Constitution, though they are exceptions to fundamental rights of liberty under Article 21.

3. Important Case Laws

Let’s discuss six landmark cases—covering both sentencing reform and preventive justice—each illustrating how the judiciary has evolved in approach and philosophy.

(1) Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684

Topic: Sentencing Reform – Death Penalty

Facts:

Bachan Singh was convicted for murder and sentenced to death. He challenged the constitutionality of the death penalty under Section 302 IPC and Section 354(3) CrPC, arguing it violated Article 21.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the death penalty but introduced the “rarest of rare” doctrine. The Court held that:

Death sentence should be awarded only when life imprisonment is unquestionably inadequate.

Judges must record special reasons for awarding death.

Sentencing must balance aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

Significance:

This case is the foundation of sentencing reform in India, emphasizing judicial discretion with rational standards.

(2) Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) 3 SCC 470

Topic: Sentencing Reform – Guidelines for Death Penalty

Facts:

Machhi Singh and others committed a series of murders due to village enmity. The trial court sentenced them to death.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court elaborated on Bachan Singh and classified cases that may justify death penalty into five categories — including manner of commission, motive, anti-social nature of crime, magnitude, and victim’s personality.

Significance:

This case provided structured guidelines for applying the “rarest of rare” rule, marking a move toward structured sentencing policy in India.

(3) State of Punjab v. Prem Sagar & Ors (2008) 7 SCC 550

Topic: Sentencing Reform – Need for Policy

Facts:

The accused were convicted for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The question was regarding appropriate sentence under Section 304 IPC.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court emphasized the need for a uniform sentencing policy, noting inconsistencies across similar cases. It directed that sentencing should consider:

Nature of offense

Circumstances of the crime

Impact on victim and society

Possibility of reforming the offender

Significance:

This case highlighted the urgent need for legislative sentencing guidelines in India, similar to the UK and US models.

(4) Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978) 4 SCC 494

Topic: Preventive Justice & Prison Reform

Facts:

Sunil Batra, a death row convict, wrote a letter to the Supreme Court alleging torture of prisoners and inhuman prison conditions.

Judgment:

The Court treated the letter as a writ petition under Article 32, expanding the scope of preventive justice within prisons. It held that:

Prisoners do not lose fundamental rights under Article 21.

Preventive and reformative measures should be adopted to protect inmates from cruelty.

The state must ensure humane conditions in prisons.

Significance:

This case marked the beginning of prison and preventive justice reform, recognizing prisoners’ rights as part of human rights.

(5) A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) SCR 88

Topic: Preventive Detention – Constitutional Validity

Facts:

A.K. Gopalan was detained under the Preventive Detention Act, 1950. He challenged it as violating Articles 19, 21, and 22.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court upheld the Act, holding that preventive detention was constitutionally valid under Article 22, even though it restricted liberty.

Significance:

This case initially gave a narrow interpretation of Article 21, focusing only on “procedure established by law,” not “due process.”
However, it was later overruled in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), which expanded the scope of Article 21.

(6) Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248

Topic: Preventive Justice – Due Process & Fairness

Facts:

Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded without giving her reasons, and she challenged it as violating her right to life and liberty.

Judgment:

The Court broadened Article 21 to include “procedure must be just, fair and reasonable.”
This decision linked Articles 14, 19, and 21, creating a triangular relationship ensuring due process in preventive justice measures.

Significance:

This case transformed preventive detention and administrative law, ensuring fairness, reasonableness, and transparency in any action restricting liberty.

4. Summary Table

Case	Year	Theme	Key Contribution
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab	1980	Sentencing Reform	“Rarest of Rare” principle for death penalty
Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab	1983	Sentencing Reform	Structured categories for capital sentencing
State of Punjab v. Prem Sagar	2008	Sentencing Reform	Need for uniform sentencing policy
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration	1978	Preventive Justice	Prisoners’ rights and humane treatment
A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras	1950	Preventive Detention	Upheld constitutional validity (narrow view)
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India	1978	Preventive Justice	Expanded due process under Article 21

5. Conclusion

Sentencing Reform in India has evolved from judicial discretion to structured guidelines, emphasizing proportionality, fairness, and reformative justice.

Preventive Justice Measures—though restricting liberty—are constitutionally valid when they follow just, fair, and reasonable procedures.

The judiciary has played a transformative role by interpreting Articles 14, 19, and 21 to protect individual rights even against preventive or punitive state actions.