Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality Of Sentences Of Imprisonment For Remainder Of Natural Life Without Remission

The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional validity of sentences directing imprisonment for the remainder of a convict's natural life, dismissing a batch of writ petitions that challenged such punishments as unconstitutional and contrary to the statutory remission framework.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih rejected petitions filed by four sets of convicts, including death row prisoners whose sentences had either been commuted by constitutional authorities or modified by courts to imprisonment for the remainder of their natural lives.

The petitioners argued that the Indian Penal Code (IPC) recognized only two punishments for murder under Section 302 - death and life imprisonment - and did not contemplate a sentence of imprisonment for the remainder of natural life without remission. They also contended that such sentences defeated the statutory remission powers available under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Rejecting the argument, Court held that since the issue stands conclusively settled by the Constitution Bench decision in Union of India v. V. Sriharan (2016), the petitions were termed an abuse of process of law.

“A five-judge Bench has said that sentences for the remainder of natural life are valid. Where does the scope arise for it to be contended that such sentences are invalid/unconstitutional or trample upon statutorily granted rights in the form of Section 432 Cr.P.C., that too before a Bench of two judges? We can only say that such an endeavour is a misuse, if not the abuse of process of law.”, observed the bench, while dismissing the petitions filed by convicts, all of whom were serving sentences requiring incarceration for the remainder of their natural lives, in some cases without remission or parole.

The principal challenge before the Court was whether a sentence directing imprisonment for the remainder of a convict's natural life, without remission, violated constitutional guarantees.

Rejecting the petitioner's contention, the Court relied on the Constitution Bench ruling in V. Sriharan, which had approved the "special category" of punishment evolved in Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State of Karnataka, (2008) 13 SCC 767. That category permits courts, in appropriate cases, to impose imprisonment for the remainder of the convict's natural life instead of awarding the death penalty. This means constitutional courts are empowered to direct that such sentences remain beyond the ordinary remission regime.

Further, the Court noted that when the sentence imposed is life imprisonment without the addition of 'without remission', the powers of the appropriate government under Section 432 CrPC remain unaffected and may be exercised to suspend or remit a convicted person's sentence.

“…when a sentence awarded is for imprisonment for life without the categorical addition of 'without remission', the power of the State under Section 432 Cr.P.C. is unaffected and such an application would be maintainable.”, the Court said.

Article 32 Is Not A Shortcut

The Court also emphasized that while Article 32 remains the "heart and soul" of the Constitution, it cannot be employed to bypass statutory or constitutional remedies otherwise available to litigants under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution.

In the case of some petitioners, the Court noted that they had not exhausted available remedies such as applications for remission or clemency. Consequently, there was no justification for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court directly under Article 32. The Court noted that the executive powers of the constitutional heads, i.e., the Governor and President, are unaffected and unencumbered by any other provision of the Constitution; therefore, a decision taken by them on remission/clemency of a convict could not ordinarily be interfered with by the Courts.

“The right of a prisoner to approach this Court obviously cannot be outrightly restricted but this right cannot be used to circumvent other procedures, using it as a shortcut to ventilate their grievances before a Court of law… The powers given to the President or the Governor are unaffected and unencumbered by any other provision of the Constitution. If the argument advanced by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is accepted, we would be sitting in appeal, (not judicial review) over the exercise of an executive power, which is not permissible.”, the Court said.

Cause Title: RAMASREY @ FAKKAD VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (with connected matters)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 736

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rishi Malhotra, Sr. Adv. Ms. Ansuiya, Adv. Mr. Shivaansh Maini, Adv. Mr. Prem Malhotra, AOR Mr. Rishi Malhotra, Sr. Adv. Ms. Ansuiya, Adv. Mr. Shivaansh Maini, Adv. Ms. Sweta Rani, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Mr. R. Venkataramani, Attorney General for India Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General (not present) Mr. S.V. Raju, A.S.G. Mr. Raja Thakare, A.S.G. Mr. Vivek Jain, A.A.G. Mr. Anandh Venkataramani, Adv. Mr. Chitvan Singhal, Adv. Ms. Anjali Agrawal, Adv. Ms. Thajaswini CB, Adv. Mr. Devvrat Singh, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Adv. Mr. Gaurang Bhushan, Adv. Mr. Hitarth Raja, Adv. Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv. Mr. Aman Mehta, Adv. Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Ms. Ameyavikrarma Thanvi, Adv. Mr. Chitvan Singhal, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Kartikay Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Shaurya Sahay, AOR Mr. Aman Jaiswal, Adv. Ms. Palak Mathur, Adv. Mr. Karan Sharma, AOR Mr. Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Rohit Khare, Adv. Mr. Rajan Chaurasiya, Adv. Mr. Kartikeya Asthana, Adv. Mr. Madhav Sinhal, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR