The Supreme Court dismissed four writ petitions that questioned the legality of sentences directing imprisonment for the remainder of a convict's natural life. Holding that such punishment has already been upheld by a Constitution Bench, the Court said the petitions were "misdirected" and found no reason to interfere with the sentences or the exercise of constitutional clemency powers.
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih delivered the judgment, dealing with common legal questions arising from four separate petitions filed by different convicts.
Background of the Case
The lead petition was filed by Ramasrey @ Fakkad, who argued that the Indian Penal Code provides only two punishments for murder death penalty or life imprisonment—and does not expressly recognize imprisonment for the remainder of a person's natural life. Similar arguments were raised in three connected petitions by Chander Kant Jha, Atbir Singh, and Sarabjit Singh, Gurdev Singh @ Baldev Singh and Satnam Singh, all of whom challenged sentences directing imprisonment for the rest of their lives, with some also questioning restrictions on remission.
The petitioners also contended that such sentences affected their statutory rights relating to remission and sought relief under Article 32 of the Constitution.
Court's Observations
The Bench first examined whether the petitions were maintainable under Article 32. It observed that although the Supreme Court has broad powers to protect fundamental rights, Article 32 cannot be used to bypass established legal procedures or function as an appeal against decisions taken by constitutional authorities exercising clemency powers.
The Court observed,
"If the argument... is accepted, we would be sitting in appeal, (not judicial review) over the exercise of an executive power, which is not permissible."
The judgment further explained that judicial review of orders passed by the President or Governor under Articles 72 and 161 is limited. Such review is available only on specific grounds, including lack of application of mind, mala fide action, consideration of irrelevant material, exclusion of relevant material, or arbitrariness. None of these grounds, the Court said, were established in the present petitions.
Constitution Bench Precedents Govern the Issue
Rejecting the challenge to the sentence itself, the Bench relied on earlier Supreme Court decisions, particularly Swamy Shraddananda (2) and the Constitution Bench ruling in Union of India v. V. Sriharan.
The Court reiterated that life imprisonment ordinarily means imprisonment for the remainder of a person's life unless lawfully remitted. It also noted that the Constitution Bench had already approved a special category of sentence where the death penalty may be substituted with imprisonment for the remainder of natural life in exceptional cases.
The Bench remarked,
"A five-judge Bench has said that sentences for the remainder of natural life are valid."
It added that reopening the same issue before a two-judge Bench amounted to a misuse of legal process.
Decision
The Court found that Ramasrey @ Fakkad and Chander Kant Jha had not first pursued available statutory or constitutional remedies for remission. In the remaining petitions, where the President had already exercised constitutional powers, the Court held that no recognised ground for judicial review had been established.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed all four writ petitions filed under Article 32 and disposed of the pending applications.
Case Details
Case Title: Ramasrey @ Fakkad v. State of Uttar Pradesh (with connected writ petitions)
Judge: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih
Decision Date: July 29, 2026
