1980 (11) TMI 167 - SC - Indian Laws

Court upholds constitutionality of Criminal Procedure Code Section 433A, affirming minimum 14-year sentence for life convicts.

The court upheld the constitutionality of Section 433A of the Criminal Procedure Code, which mandates a minimum of 14 years of imprisonment for certain ... - Issues Involved:1. Constitutionality of Section 433A of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. Legislative competency of Parliament to enact Section 433A.3. Interpretation of the non-obstante clause in Section 433A.4. Impact of Section 433A on remission and commutation of sentences.5. Violation of Articles 14 and 20(1) of the Constitution.6. Prospective application of Section 433A.7. Relationship between Section 433A and Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution.8. Guidelines for the exercise of pardon, remission, and commutation powers under Articles 72 and 161.9. Application of parole and other release mechanisms under Section 433A.Detailed Analysis:1. Constitutionality of Section 433A of the Criminal Procedure Code:The petitioners challenged the vires of Section 433A, arguing that it was unconstitutional and violated fundamental rights. The court held that Section 433A, which mandates a minimum of 14 years of imprisonment for life convicts, is constitutional. The court emphasized that while the provision may seem harsh, it is within the legislative competence of Parliament and does not violate any constitutional provisions.2. Legislative Competency of Parliament to Enact Section 433A:The court dismissed the contention that Parliament lacked the legislative competence to enact Section 433A. It held that the entries in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution must be interpreted liberally, and Entries 1 and 2 of List III are broad enough to cover legislation like Section 433A. The court concluded that the execution, remission, and commutation of sentences fall within the scope of the Criminal Procedure Code, and Section 433A is appropriately placed within this framework.3. Interpretation of the Non-Obstante Clause in Section 433A:The court rejected the argument that the non-obstante clause in Section 433A, which excludes the operation of Section 432, implicitly allows the operational survival of remission rules made by various states. The court held that the non-obstante clause clearly indicates that Section 433A overrides any other provisions, including remission rules, for the specified categories of life convicts.4. Impact of Section 433A on Remission and Commutation of Sentences:The court held that Section 433A sets a mandatory minimum period of 14 years of actual imprisonment for certain categories of life convicts, regardless of any remission earned. The court emphasized that remission cannot reduce the actual duration of imprisonment below 14 years for these convicts. However, the court clarified that the constitutional powers under Articles 72 and 161 remain unaffected by Section 433A.5. Violation of Articles 14 and 20(1) of the Constitution:The court held that Section 433A does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution, as it is not arbitrary or irrational. The classification made by the provision is based on the gravity of the offense and is intended to serve the purpose of social defense. The court also held that Section 433A does not violate Article 20(1) as it does not impose a heavier penalty than what was prescribed at the time of the commission of the offense.6. Prospective Application of Section 433A:The court held that Section 433A is prospective in effect. It clarified that the mandatory minimum of 14 years of actual imprisonment would not apply to those whose cases were decided by the trial court before December 18, 1978, when Section 433A came into force. Such convicts are entitled to the benefits of remission schemes and short-sentencing laws that existed before the enactment of Section 433A.7. Relationship Between Section 433A and Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution:The court held that Section 433A does not affect the constitutional powers under Articles 72 and 161, which vest the President and the Governor with the power to grant pardons, reprieves, remissions, and commutations. These powers are independent and cannot be curtailed by any legislation, including Section 433A.8. Guidelines for the Exercise of Pardon, Remission, and Commutation Powers Under Articles 72 and 161:The court emphasized that the exercise of powers under Articles 72 and 161 must be guided by principles of fairness, reasonableness, and non-arbitrariness. The court suggested that the existing remission rules and short-sentencing schemes could serve as guidelines for the exercise of these constitutional powers until new rules are formulated.9. Application of Parole and Other Release Mechanisms Under Section 433A:The court clarified that Section 433A does not prohibit parole or other release mechanisms within the 14-year span. It emphasized the need for liberal use of parole and other humanizing strategies to prevent the negative effects of prolonged incarceration and to promote the rehabilitation of prisoners.Conclusion:The court upheld the constitutionality of Section 433A but emphasized the continued relevance of remission and parole as tools for the humane treatment of prisoners. It directed that the benefits of remission and short-sentencing schemes should be available to those convicted before the enactment of Section 433A and suggested that these schemes be used as guidelines for the exercise of constitutional powers under Articles 72 and 161.