Supreme Court Upholds Life Imprisonment Without Remission, Dismisses Convicts’ Pleas Challenging Constitutional Validity

New Delhi, July 30, 2026: The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional validity of sentences that require convicts to remain in prison for the rest of their natural lives, including in cases where remission is not permitted.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by four sets of convicts, holding that the issue had already been conclusively settled by a Constitution Bench in 2016.

The petitions were filed by convicts, including death row prisoners whose sentences had either been commuted by constitutional authorities or modified by courts to imprisonment for the remainder of their natural lives.

They argued that Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) provides only two punishments for murder, death or life imprisonment, and does not recognise imprisonment for the remainder of a person's natural life without remission.

They also claimed that such sentences undermine the statutory remission powers available under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), Live Law reports.

No Fresh Ground To Reopen Settled Law

Rejecting the challenge, the Supreme Court said the constitutional validity of such sentences had already been upheld by the Constitution Bench in Union of India v. V. Sriharan (2016). The Bench observed that there was no scope for a two-judge Bench to reconsider an issue already settled by a larger Bench.

"A five-judge Bench has said that sentences for the remainder of natural life are valid. Where does the scope arise for it to be contended that such sentences are invalid or unconstitutional or trample upon statutorily granted rights under Section 432 CrPC, that too before a Bench of two judges? We can only say that such an endeavour is a misuse, if not the abuse, of process of law," the court said while dismissing the petitions.

The principal issue before the court was whether directing a convict to remain in prison for the rest of his or her natural life, without remission, violates constitutional guarantees.

The court answered the question in the negative and relied on the Constitution Bench ruling in V. Sriharan, which had approved the "special category" of punishment evolved in Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State of Karnataka (2008).

Under this category, courts can sentence a convict to imprisonment for the remainder of their natural life instead of awarding the death penalty, keeping the sentence outside the ordinary remission framework.

The Bench, however, clarified that where a court imposes only life imprisonment and does not specifically state "without remission", the powers of the appropriate government under Section 432 CrPC remain intact. In such cases, the government can still consider applications seeking suspension or remission of the sentence.

Article 32 Not A Shortcut To Clemency

The Supreme Court also made it clear that Article 32 of the Constitution cannot be used to bypass other legal remedies available to prisoners. While describing Article 32 as the "heart and soul" of the Constitution, the court said it cannot become a shortcut to avoid statutory or constitutional procedures under Articles 72 and 161, which deal with the powers of the President and Governors to grant clemency.

The court noted that some of the petitioners had not exhausted remedies such as applying for remission or seeking clemency from the constitutional authorities before approaching the Supreme Court. It said there was no justification for invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 32 in such circumstances.

Observing that the powers of the President and Governors are independent and cannot ordinarily be interfered with by courts, the Bench said accepting the petitioners' argument would effectively amount to sitting in appeal over executive decisions, which is not permissible.

Also Watch:

"The right of a prisoner to approach this Court obviously cannot be outrightly restricted, but this right cannot be used to circumvent other procedures, using it as a shortcut to ventilate their grievances before a court of law. The powers given to the President or the Governor are unaffected and unencumbered by any other provision of the Constitution. If the argument advanced by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is accepted, we would be sitting in appeal, not judicial review, over the exercise of an executive power, which is not permissible," the court said.

To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/