India Needs a National Sentencing Council

INDIA NEEDS A NATIONAL SENTENCING COUNCIL FOR FAIR JUSTICE

WHY IN THE NEWS ?

• Policy Debate: The Supreme Court, in Sunita Devi v. State of Bihar (2024), highlighted concerns over inconsistent sentencing and urged the Centre to examine a comprehensive national sentencing policy.
• Institutional Reform: The Law Commission of India is examining the issue, renewing debate over establishing a Sentencing Council to promote consistency, transparency and fairness in criminal punishment.

SENTENCING DISPARITIES AND JUDICIAL DISCRETION:

• Unequal Punishment: Individuals convicted of similar offences may receive significantly different sentences because sentencing decisions largely depend on the discretion of individual judges.
• Limited Framework: Indian laws prescribe minimum or maximum punishments for certain offences but lack a comprehensive framework for weighing aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
• Irrelevant Factors: Research on rape sentencing has highlighted instances where courts relied on inappropriate considerations, including a victim’s supposed chastity or subsequent marriage, while overlooking psychological harm and violations of trust.
• Appellate Burden: Higher courts frequently spend valuable judicial time correcting excessively harsh or unduly lenient sentences because there is no common sentencing benchmark.
• Constitutional Concerns: Arbitrary differences in punishment raise questions under Articles 14 and 21, which protect equality before the law and the right to life and personal liberty through fair procedures.

SENTENCING COUNCIL: PROPOSED REFORMS AND GLOBAL LESSONS

• Structured Guidelines: A statutory Sentencing Council could introduce offence-specific guidelines using a three-stage process: assess culpability and harm, identify an indicative sentence range, and individualise punishment with justified reasons.
• National Database: An anonymised sentencing database, potentially built using the National Judicial Data Grid, could help identify disparities and evaluate whether sentencing guidelines are effective.
• Accountable Discretion: Guidelines could be issued as delegated legislation, placed before Parliament for approval, and treated as strongly presumptive while allowing judges to depart with reasoned justification.
• Existing Alternatives: Sections 401 and 402 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, provide alternatives to imprisonment in eligible cases.
• International Example: England and Wales established a Sentencing Council supported by a Sentencing Code, offering a model for structured, transparent and consistent sentencing while retaining judicial discretion.