Supreme Court upholds life-without-remission sentence, rejects Article 32 challenge by convicts
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih dismissed four writ petitions challenging remainder-of-natural-life sentences, holding Sriharan settled the question and clemency orders survive judicial review.
The Supreme Court has dismissed four criminal writ petitions that attacked sentences of imprisonment for the remainder of natural life as unconstitutional and as a shortcut to reopen settled convictions. Justice Sanjay Karol, writing for a bench that also included Justice Augustine George Masih, held that a five-judge Constitution Bench had already validated this category of sentence, leaving no room for a two-judge bench to declare it invalid. The Court also found that where the President had commuted death sentences to natural life without remission, there was no ground to interfere. The petitioners had argued that Section 302 IPC provides only death or life imprisonment, and that a natural-life sentence defeats statutory rights under Section 432 CrPC. The Court called the effort a misuse of process, and dismissed all four petitions filed under Article 32.
How four petitions reached the Court
The lead matter, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 553 of 2023, was filed by Ramasrey @ Fakkad. He had been convicted under Sections 364A, 302 and 201 IPC in Sessions Trial No. 647 of 2006 before the Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area), Agra, and sentenced to death. The Allahabad High Court modified that to imprisonment for the remainder of natural life. His special leave petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 3 August 2015.
His argument was that Section 302 IPC contemplates only two punishments — death or imprisonment for life — and does not provide for imprisonment for the remainder of natural life, making such a sentence unconstitutional.
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 42 of 2024 was filed by Chander Kant Jha, convicted under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to death by the trial court, with the Delhi High Court modifying the sentence to remainder of natural life without remission. The State’s appeal was dismissed on 11 February 2019.
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 69 of 2025 was preferred by Atbir Singh, convicted under Section 302/34 IPC in connection with FIR No. 24 of 1996. After the Delhi High Court confirmed the sentence and this Court dismissed his appeal, review and curative petitions, his mercy petition under Article 72 was accepted by order dated 15 November 2012, modifying his sentence to natural life without parole.
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 198 of 2025 came from Sarabjit Singh, Gurdev Singh @ Baldev Singh and Satnam Singh, convicted under Sections 302/307/148/149 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, in connection with FIR No. 226 of 1991. The Punjab and Haryana High Court confirmed the death sentence and appeals were dismissed by this Court. Their mercy petitions were accepted, with sentences modified to remainder of natural life with no remission.
Senior Counsel Rishi Malhotra appeared for the petitioners. Additional Solicitors General S.V. Raju and Raja S. Thakare appeared for the respondents, and the Court sought the assistance of Attorney General R. Venkataramani by order dated 16 October 2025.
Maintainability under Article 32
The Attorney General objected to the maintainability of the petitions. The Court framed three questions: the constitutionality of the sentences, whether judicial review of clemency under Article 72 is permissible under Article 32 or Article 136, and whether the Court could itself modify a sentence already modified under Article 72.
The Court accepted that Article 32 is described as the “most important Article” in the Constitution and recognised in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India as part of the basic structure. But it stressed the jurisdiction is not unlimited. A prisoner’s right to approach the Court cannot be used to circumvent other procedures or as a shortcut. It relied on Daryao v. State of U.P., Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. Union of India and Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India, which requires a petitioner to show a Part III right actually violated.
No independent power to reduce a President’s sentence
On the petitions of Sarabjit and Atbir, the Court noted the challenge was not that the President or Governor exercised power wrongly, but that the Court should independently reduce their sentences after clemency had already been exercised. To do so, the Court said, would mean sitting in appeal — not judicial review — over an executive power, which is impermissible. The powers under Articles 72 and 161 are unencumbered by other constitutional provisions.
Drawing on Epuru Sudhakar, Maru Ram, Kehar Singh and V. Sriharan, the Court set out that judicial review of clemency is confined to grounds such as non-application of mind, mala fides, extraneous considerations, exclusion of relevant material, or arbitrariness. None of these grounds, it held, were met.
Why the constitutionality challenge failed
Turning to the argument that natural-life imprisonment is unconstitutional, the Court traced the position from Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State of Karnataka, where a three-judge bench recognised a special category of sentence between fourteen years and death, kept beyond remission. This was affirmed by the Constitution Bench in Union of India v. V. Sriharan, where a majority found the special category well founded and all five judges agreed that imprisonment for life under Section 53 read with Section 45 IPC means imprisonment for the rest of the convict’s life.
Given that a five-judge bench had upheld remainder-of-natural-life sentences, the Court questioned how the petitioners could argue their invalidity before a two-judge bench. It described the attempt as a misuse, if not an abuse, of process.
On Section 432 CrPC, the Court explained that where a life sentence carries no express “without remission” condition, the State’s power under Section 432 is unaffected and a remission application is maintainable. Where the “without remission” condition is imposed, given the gravity of the crime, denuding that statutory right does not offend the Constitution.
The Court also addressed reliance on Joseph v. State of Kerala, clarifying that it holds only that the State Government cannot by executive instruction take away premature release, not that courts cannot impose extended sentences. That case, the Court said, did not support the petitioners.
Outcome
In Ramasrey’s petition, the Court noted he had not sought remission from the State Government or constitutional authorities, and declined to entertain the petition under Article 32. In Chander Kant Jha’s petition, it similarly found no ground, adding that his conviction expressly directed no release on remission for life.
In the petitions of Atbir Singh and the Sarabjit Singh group, where the President had already passed orders, the Court found no contravention of the principles governing clemency and no ground for judicial review. Holding the petitions to be misdirected, the Court dismissed all four under Article 32 by judgment dated 29 July 2026.