Sentencing Shouldn't Be a Lottery: Supreme Court Urges Union to Develop Policy to Minimize Judge-Centric Disparities
Observing wide disparities in convict sentencing due to a judge-centric approach, the Supreme Court in Sunita Devi vs. State of Bihar & Anr. recommended that the Union Government consider introducing a comprehensive sentencing policy. The court requested a report from a Sentencing Commission within six months, noting the lack of a clear policy or legislation on sentencing has led to inconsistencies.
The bench of Justices MM Sundresh and SVN Bhatti highlighted that sentencing should not depend solely on a judge's discretion, which can be influenced by personal background and biases. Instead, there should be guidelines to ensure uniformity and fairness, avoiding sentencing as a "lottery" or knee-jerk reaction. The court referred to models from countries like Canada, New Zealand, Israel, and the UK, as well as previous Law Commission reports advocating for a distinct sentencing policy in India.
The court also emphasized the importance of considering probation options under Section 360 of the CrPC and the Probation of Offenders Act before passing a sentence. The ruling came from a case where a POCSO trial was completed in a single day, resulting in a death sentence without sufficient time for the accused to defend himself. The High Court later found non-compliance with procedural requirements and ordered a new trial, leading to the Supreme Court's recommendations for a structured sentencing framework.