Life Without Remission Challenged Under Article 32: Supreme Court Calls the Petitions Misdirected

Case at a Glance

The Supreme Court has dismissed four Article 32 petitions by convicts serving imprisonment for the remainder of their natural life, some without remission, whose death sentences had been commuted by courts or by the President. It held that the constitutionality of such sentences is settled by the Constitution Bench in Union of India v. V. Sriharan, that re-agitating it was a misuse of process, and that no ground for judicial review of the clemency decisions was shown.

The petitioners had been sentenced to death in separate cases. In one, the Allahabad High Court modified death to imprisonment for the remainder of natural life; in another, the Delhi High Court did so without remission. In two others, after the Supreme Court had dismissed their appeals, the President under Article 72 modified the death sentences to life for the remainder of natural life, in one case without parole and in the other without remission.

The petitioners approached the Supreme Court directly under Article 32, questioning the constitutionality of the sentence of imprisonment for the remainder of natural life, the reviewability of clemency decisions, and whether the Court could modify a sentence already modified under Article 72.

The Key Question Before the Court

Can convicts use Article 32 to challenge sentences of life for the remainder of natural life and the Presidential clemency orders that imposed them?

Settled Law and the Limits of Clemency Review

The Court held that Article 32 cannot be used as a shortcut to bypass other remedies, and that sitting over a clemency decision as if in appeal is not permitted. Relying on Epuru Sudhakar, (2006) 10 SC CK 0040, Maru Ram, (1980) 11 SC CK 0017, Kehar Singh, (1988) 12 SC CK 0010, V. Sriharan and others, it listed the limited grounds for review — non-application of mind, mala fides, extraneous considerations, ignoring relevant material and arbitrariness — and found none made out.

On the sentence itself, it referred to Sections 45 and 53 IPC and their BNS equivalents, Swamy Shraddananda (2), (2008) 07 SC CK 0014 and the Constitution Bench in V. Sriharan, which upheld the special category of sentence, and held that challenging it again “is a misuse, if not the abuse of process of law”. It distinguished Joseph v. State of Kerala as concerning executive instructions rather than court-imposed sentences.

What the Court Actually Held

• All four writ petitions were dismissed as misdirected.
• The constitutionality of a sentence for the remainder of natural life is settled by V. Sriharan.
• Clemency decisions are reviewable only on narrow grounds, none of which was shown.
• One petitioner had not even sought remission from the State or constitutional authorities.

Why This Judgment Matters

• It closes the door on re-litigating Sriharan through Article 32.
• It restates the narrow scope of judicial review over Article 72 and 161 decisions.
• It reminds convicts to pursue remission remedies before the appropriate authority first.

What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?

For Convicts’ Counsel

• Apply for remission to the appropriate Government before approaching the Supreme Court.
• Challenge a clemency order only on recognised grounds such as mala fides or non-application of mind, with material.

For State Counsel

• Rely on V. Sriharan to defend special-category life sentences.
• Object to Article 32 petitions that bypass available remedies.

Key Takeaways

Frequently Asked Questions

No. It treated the Constitution Bench ruling as settling the question and held a fresh challenge to be an abuse of process.

Yes, but only on narrow grounds such as non-application of mind, mala fides, extraneous considerations, ignoring relevant material or arbitrariness.

The Court said it concerned executive instructions, not sentences imposed by courts.

Conclusion