Unequal Sentences Raise Concerns Over Judicial Discretion

India needs a structured sentencing framework to ensure that people convicted of similar offences receive fair and proportionate punishments, according to legal experts Sidharth Luthra and Raghav Sengupta. In their analysis, the authors argue that sentencing decisions often depend heavily on individual judges because Indian laws generally prescribe minimum or maximum punishments without providing comprehensive guidelines for determining the final sentence.

The absence of clear standards can lead to inconsistencies in the treatment of offenders. Research on rape sentencing has highlighted instances where courts relied on inappropriate considerations, including a complainant’s supposed chastity or subsequent marriage, while overlooking psychological harm and breaches of trust.

Such disparities raise constitutional concerns under Articles 14 and 21, which protect equality before the law and the right to life and personal liberty. In Sunita Devi v. State of Bihar (2024), the Supreme Court observed that sentencing should not become a “lottery” and asked the Centre to examine the feasibility of a comprehensive national sentencing policy. The Law Commission of India has been tasked with examining the issue.

Proposed Council Could Introduce Evidence-Based Guidelines

The experts propose establishing a Sentencing Council through an Act of Parliament. The body could develop offence-specific guidelines that assess the seriousness of crimes based on culpability, harm caused, aggravating circumstances and mitigating factors. Courts could use indicative sentencing ranges while retaining the flexibility to consider individual circumstances.

The Council could also create a national sentencing database using the National Judicial Data Grid infrastructure. Anonymised data on offences, sentencing decisions and relevant factors would help identify disparities and evaluate the effectiveness of guidelines.

England and Wales provide a possible model, where a Sentencing Council issues structured guidelines that help judges determine appropriate punishments without eliminating judicial discretion. A similar Indian framework could require courts to consider the guidelines and provide reasons for departing from them.

However, the experts caution that excessive centralisation, pressure for harsher punishments and mechanical compliance could undermine the system. An independent, evidence-based Council would therefore be essential.

The authors conclude that a national sentencing framework could improve consistency, transparency and accountability while preserving judicial independence and ensuring proportionate punishment.