Mandatory Sentencing Vs Discretionary Penalties
1. Introduction: Sentencing in Criminal Law
After conviction, the sentencing stage determines the punishment a convicted person will face. In India, sentencing involves two broad categories:
Mandatory Sentencing – The law requires a specific punishment, leaving no discretion to the judge.
Discretionary Sentencing – The judge has freedom to determine punishment within a prescribed range, based on the facts and mitigating circumstances.
The goal is to balance deterrence, reformation, and proportionality of punishment.
2. Legal Framework
Mandatory Sentencing:
Certain laws prescribe fixed punishments for specific offenses to deter grave crimes.
Examples include:
Section 302 IPC – Punishment for murder: Death or life imprisonment (mandatory minimum: life)
Section 397 IPC – Robbery with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt: Minimum 7 years
NDPS Act, 1985 (Sections 21, 22, 23) – Minimum 10 years imprisonment and fine for commercial quantity offenses.
POCSO Act, 2012 – Prescribes minimum terms for sexual offenses against children.
Discretionary Sentencing:
Judges determine the term or amount of punishment based on mitigating or aggravating factors.
Examples:
Section 304 IPC – Culpable homicide not amounting to murder (up to life imprisonment or fine).
Section 325 IPC – Grievous hurt (up to 7 years imprisonment or fine).
3. Philosophical Distinction
| Basis | Mandatory Sentencing | Discretionary Penalties |
|---|---|---|
| Judicial Role | Limited | Flexible |
| Purpose | Deterrence and uniformity | Reform and individualized justice |
| Examples | NDPS Act, POCSO Act | IPC general provisions |
| Risk | May cause injustice in exceptional cases | May lead to inconsistency in sentencing |
4. Key Case Laws
Case 1: Mithu v. State of Punjab (1983)
Facts:
Section 303 IPC imposed mandatory death penalty for murder by a life convict.
Judgment:
Supreme Court struck down Section 303 IPC as unconstitutional (violating Articles 14 and 21) because it took away judicial discretion and did not allow consideration of mitigating factors.
Significance:
Landmark judgment affirming that mandatory death sentences violate the right to fair and just procedure.
Judicial discretion is essential to ensure individualized justice.
Case 2: Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980)
Facts:
Challenge to the constitutionality of the death penalty under Section 302 IPC.
Judgment:
Court upheld death penalty but ruled it should be imposed only in the “rarest of rare” cases after considering mitigating and aggravating factors.
Significance:
Established judicial discretion in awarding capital punishment.
Introduced proportionality and individualized sentencing as part of fair trial rights.
Case 3: State of Punjab v. Prem Sagar (2008)
Facts:
The issue was inconsistency in sentencing under discretionary provisions of IPC.
Judgment:
Supreme Court held that sentencing must be consistent, rational, and based on judicial reasoning.
Urged need for structured sentencing guidelines to avoid arbitrariness.
Significance:
Emphasized judicial responsibility in exercising discretion fairly.
Case 4: Union of India v. Kuldeep Singh (2004)
Facts:
NDPS Act prescribes mandatory minimum punishment for drug trafficking. The accused sought leniency.
Judgment:
Supreme Court ruled that courts cannot reduce punishment below statutory minimum, even for mitigating factors.
Significance:
Reinforced that mandatory minimums under special statutes override discretion.
Case 5: State of Rajasthan v. Vinod Kumar (2012)
Facts:
Offender convicted under POCSO Act where law prescribes mandatory minimum sentence.
Judgment:
Court clarified that judges cannot reduce the punishment below the prescribed minimum term even if mitigating circumstances exist.
Significance:
Demonstrates strict application of mandatory sentencing in sexual offenses.
Case 6: Maru Ram v. Union of India (1981)
Facts:
Constitutional validity of Section 433A CrPC restricting premature release of life convicts.
Judgment:
Supreme Court upheld the section, but emphasized that clemency powers under Articles 72 and 161 remain available.
Significance:
Reiterated that judicial discretion may be restricted by statute, but constitutional mercy powers serve as a safeguard.
Case 7: Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra (2012)
Facts:
Accused in a drunk driving case causing multiple deaths sought lenient punishment.
Judgment:
Supreme Court refused leniency, observing that sentencing should reflect societal deterrence.
Significance:
Shows that discretionary sentencing must align with public interest and proportionality.
Case 8: Santa Singh v. State of Punjab (1976)
Facts:
Issue: whether sentencing should be done after hearing the accused separately from the conviction phase.
Judgment:
Supreme Court ruled that accused must be heard on the question of sentence separately as per Section 235(2) CrPC.
Significance:
Reinforces discretionary sentencing procedure and right to fair hearing before punishment.
5. Key Principles Derived from Case Law
Mandatory sentences may violate Article 21 if they eliminate judicial consideration (Mithu case).
Judicial discretion ensures justice tailored to circumstances (Bachan Singh).
Statutory minimums under NDPS and POCSO must be followed strictly (Kuldeep Singh, Vinod Kumar).
Proportionality and fairness are constitutional values in sentencing (Prem Sagar, Alister Pareira).
Accused has the right to be heard before sentencing (Santa Singh).
6. Balancing Mandatory and Discretionary Approaches
| Aspect | Mandatory Sentencing | Discretionary Sentencing |
|---|---|---|
| Advantages | Ensures deterrence and uniformity | Allows individualized justice |
| Disadvantages | Can cause injustice in unique cases | May result in inconsistency |
| Constitutional View | Acceptable if not arbitrary | Must follow proportionality and fairness |
| Judicial Role | Limited to applying law | Evaluates circumstances, reform, and mitigation |
7. Challenges in Practice
Lack of structured sentencing guidelines in India.
Disparity in similar cases due to wide discretion.
Legislative rigidity under special statutes like NDPS or POCSO.
Balancing public sentiment and individual justice.
8. Conclusion
India follows a balanced model—some statutes prescribe mandatory minimums, while others allow judicial discretion within limits.
Courts have consistently emphasized that sentencing must uphold constitutional fairness, proportionality, and reformation goals.
Landmark judgments like Mithu, Bachan Singh, Prem Sagar, Kuldeep Singh, and Santa Singh together establish that:
Judicial discretion is essential for justice.
Mandatory punishments are constitutional only when proportionate and reasonable.
Fair sentencing protects both society and the rights of the offender.
RELATED Blog
0 comments