Feasibility Of Introducing Uniform Sentencing Policy Referred To Law Commission: Union Informs Supreme Court

The Supreme Court was recently informed by the Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati that the feasibility of introducing a comprehensive and uniform sentencing policy has been referred to the Law Commission of India.

This comes after a bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and SVN Bhatti in May, last year, recommended the Department of Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India, to consider introducing a comprehensive policy on sentencing within 6 months.

“Hearing the accused on sentence is a valuable right conferred on the accused. The real importance lies only with the sentence, as against the conviction. Unfortunately, we do not have a clear policy or legislation when it comes to sentencing. Over the years, it has become judge-centric and there are admitted disparities in awarding a sentence," the Court had observed.

The court noted that due to the absence of a clear sentencing policy, a decision of a Judge in sentencing would vary from person to person where a Judge from an affluent background might have a different mindset as against a Judge from a humble one. A female Judge might look at it differently when compared to her male counterpart. Thus, the court observed that there's a need for a clear sentencing policy, which should never be judge-centric as society has to know the basis of a sentence.

“As it is an important aspect which has escaped the attention of the Government of India, we recommend the Department of Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India, to consider introducing a comprehensive policy, possibly by way of getting an appropriate report from a duly constituted Sentencing Commission consisting of experts in different fields for the purpose of having a distinct sentencing policy. We request the Union of India to respond to our suggestion by way of an affidavit within a period of six months from today.”, the bench comprising Justices MM Sundresh and SVN Bhatti said.

In this case, the trial in a POCSO case was completed in a day, and the judgment was also delivered on the same day. The accused wasn't provided sufficient time to defend his case, and after two days of passing of Judgment, a hearing on the sentencing of the accused took place, where he was awarded a death sentence.

The High Court, by the impugned judgment, called for the records and went through them thoroughly, finding that there is non-compliance with Sections 207, 226, 227, and 230 of the CrPC, 1973, set aside the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court, and ordered for a de novo trial. Incidentally, the approach adopted by the Trial Court was found faulted.

Against the decision of the High Court, two criminal appeals were preferred before the Supreme Court i.e., one by the informant on merit and the other by the Trial Court Judge against the observation made by the High Court against the Trial Court Judge.

Case Details: SUNITA DEVI v.THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR|Miscellaneous Application No. 238/2025 in Crl.A. No. 3924/2023

Click Here To Read Order