Punishment and pendency: Need for, role of a sentencing council, Pg17

Key Highlights:

• India faces significant sentencing disparity, where individuals convicted of the same crime receive varied sentences due to judicial discretion.
• The Supreme Court, in Sunita Devi vs State of Bihar (2024), highlighted this issue, stating that "sentencing shall not be a mere lottery" and urged the Centre to explore a national sentencing policy.
• The Law Commission of India has been tasked with examining the feasibility of a comprehensive national sentencing policy, a concern it previously raised in its 47th Report over 30 years ago.
• A proposed Sentencing Council, established by an Act of Parliament, could develop offence-specific guidelines, build a national sentencing database, and issue advisory guidelines.

Sentencing Disparity.jpg

Detailed Insights:

• The current system, where judges have almost complete discretion, raises concerns regarding Articles 14 (equality before the law) and 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Indian Constitution.
• Research indicates that sentences have been reduced based on legally irrelevant factors, such as a complainant's perceived "chastity," while ignoring psychological harm.
• The existing legal framework already provides alternatives to custody, including Sections 401 and 402 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and Sections 3, 4, and 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act 1958, which courts are mandated to consider.
• The Supreme Court in Soman vs State Of Kerala (2012) acknowledged the competing principles in sentencing and noted it as a weak part of criminal justice administration.
• Appellate courts frequently spend valuable time correcting sentences due to the lack of a common yardstick, instead of the primary responsibility lying with the convicting court under Section 258(2) of the BNSS.
• A national sentencing database, leveraging the National Judicial Data Grid, would provide anonymized data on offence types, culpability, and sentences, enabling transparency and evaluation of guidelines.
• Guidelines issued by such a council would be advisory but strongly presumptive, requiring courts to provide reasons for any departure, thereby balancing judicial independence with accountability.

Key Concepts Involved:

• Sentencing Disparity: Inconsistent application of punishments for similar crimes, leading to unequal outcomes.
• Sentencing Council/Commission: A body proposed to formulate guidelines and policies for consistent and fair sentencing.
• Probation: A system allowing offenders to remain in the community under supervision instead of imprisonment, focusing on rehabilitation.
• Aggravating/Mitigating Factors: Circumstances that increase or decrease the severity of a crime or the culpability of an offender, influencing sentencing.