Document Type

Research Article

Abstract

This article critically examines the Supreme Court of India’s use of life imprisonment without the possibility of remission or parole (LWORP) as a sentencing alternative to the death penalty. While the Constitution Bench in V Sriharan vs Union of India (2015) upheld the constitutionality of such sentences, it did not articulate principled standards governing their imposition. This article argues that the absence of such standards has produced a vacuum in LWORP sentencing. To substantiate this claim, we analyse fifty-three Supreme Court judgments delivered between 2016 and 2024 in which death sentences were commuted to LWORP. The analysis reveals widespread inconsistency and arbitrariness in the treatment of aggravating and mitigating factors, an absence of reasoned justification for choosing LWORP over simple life imprisonment, and no coherent basis for determining the duration of LWORP. In cases involving sexual offences, the brutality of the crime frequently eclipses mitigating considerations, replicating patterns associated with capital sentencing. We argue that LWORP, as currently administered, imports the arbitrariness of death penalty jurisprudence into non-capital sentencing while simultaneously marginalising reformation and rehabilitation as sentencing objectives. The article concludes by cautioning against the unprincipled expansion of LWORP and highlighting the need for a more structured and transparent sentencing framework governing its use.

Publication Date

4-11-2026

Journal

Asian Journal of Comparative Law

Download

Share

COinS