Sentencing Reforms
What are Sentencing Reforms?
Sentencing reforms refer to changes or suggestions aimed at improving the justice delivery system by:
Making sentencing more just, fair, and proportionate
Reducing discretionary errors and arbitrariness
Promoting rehabilitation and reformation rather than only punishment
Ensuring uniformity and consistency in sentencing
Addressing overcrowding in prisons through alternatives to incarceration
Incorporating human rights perspectives and protecting vulnerable groups
Need for Sentencing Reforms in India
High variation in sentences for similar offenses
Excessive reliance on imprisonment, especially life imprisonment and death penalty
Inadequate recognition of mitigating circumstances
Lack of procedural safeguards in sentencing phase
Need to balance deterrence with rehabilitation
Recent Developments & Recommendations
Emphasis on alternative sentencing (probation, fines, community service)
Focus on individualized sentencing based on offender’s background
Codified guidelines for sentencing serious crimes
Greater judicial scrutiny before awarding capital punishment
Sensitivity to gender, age, mental health in sentencing
Landmark Case Laws on Sentencing Reforms
1. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898
Facts: Challenged the constitutionality of death penalty.
Reform Aspect: Supreme Court introduced the “rarest of rare” doctrine to restrict the death penalty.
Held: Death penalty should be imposed only when alternative punishment is unquestionably foreclosed.
Significance: Landmark judgment curbing arbitrary capital punishment, introducing a principled approach balancing deterrence and human rights.
2. Mithu v. State of Punjab, AIR 1983 SC 473
Facts: Challenge to mandatory death sentence under Section 303 IPC.
Reform Aspect: Declared mandatory death sentence unconstitutional.
Held: Courts must consider circumstances before awarding death penalty.
Significance: Ensured judicial discretion and case-by-case assessment in sentencing reforms.
3. Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1978 SC 1675
Facts: Rights of prisoners and conditions of imprisonment.
Reform Aspect: Emphasized humane treatment of prisoners as part of sentencing reforms.
Held: Even convicts retain fundamental rights and cruel treatment or torture in prisons is unconstitutional.
Significance: Expanded the scope of sentencing reforms to post-conviction rights and prison reforms.
4. Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2013 SC 34
Facts: Challenge to the sentence of life imprisonment.
Reform Aspect: Court introduced the concept of periodic review of life sentences for reformative prospects.
Held: Life imprisonment does not necessarily mean imprisonment till death; release after reasonable period can be considered.
Significance: Progressive stance towards rehabilitative sentencing and reconsideration of life imprisonment duration.
5. Daya Bai v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2020) 1 SCC 784
Facts: Regarding alternatives to imprisonment for minor offenders.
Reform Aspect: Court recommended increased use of probation and community service.
Held: Imprisonment should be a last resort, and non-custodial sentences should be promoted for minor and first-time offenders.
Significance: Push towards reducing prison overcrowding and encouraging restorative justice.
Summary: Key Features of Sentencing Reforms
Rarest of rare doctrine limits death penalty.
Mandatory sentences are discouraged; judicial discretion is vital.
Prisoners’ human rights must be protected.
Life imprisonment should include periodic reviews for release.
Alternatives to incarceration (probation, fines, community service) are encouraged.
Sentencing must be individualized, fair, and humane.
RELATED Blog
0 comments