LI Network
Published on: 14 September 2023 at 16:08 IST
The Supreme Court has raised a significant question regarding whether a legal provision that denies remission to convicts sentenced to life imprisonment for gang rape of girls below 12 years old can be interpreted to allow such remission.
This query emerged during a hearing on a plea challenging the constitutional validity of Section 376DB of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which mandates life imprisonment without remission as the minimum punishment for gang rape of minors under the age of twelve.
A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal suggested that allowing remission in contravention of the law’s could be seen as “doing violence” to the statute.
Justice Oka questioned whether a constitutional court could interpret the section to mean that life imprisonment applies only for a specific number of years, despite the law stating “till the natural life” of the convict.
The petitioner in this case is a convict serving a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of remission.
The provision, introduced in response to the Nirbhaya case, has been contested as violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution because it eliminates the potential for an individual’s reformation.
The petitioner argued that in instances where a person has been convicted of raping a minor girl, courts have commuted their death sentence to life imprisonment, which can range from 20 to 50 years.
The petitioner contended that if life imprisonment is interpreted as lasting until the convict’s natural death, the imprisonment could extend for an excessively disproportionate duration relative to the offense.
During the hearing, Attorney General (AG) R Venkataramani, representing the Central government, mentioned that discussions were ongoing in parliament regarding a new penal code. He suggested that the matter be deferred until then. However, the Court emphasized that the existing penal code would continue to apply until any changes are made and that interpretation was required in the present case.
The AG stated that courts could interpret a statute in a particular manner, but they must adhere to the law. He suggested that appellate courts could interpret the meaning of life imprisonment, but relaxing the definition of “natural life” would entail a form of hybrid jurisdiction.
The judges determined that the issue required further examination and scheduled the case for the next hearing on December 5.
