Imprisonment for Remainder of Natural Life: Supreme Court Reaffirms Constitutionality of the "Special Category" Sentence

Case Snapshot

Case Name: RAMASREY @ FAKKAD v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: 2026 INSC 764

Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol & Justice Augustine George Masih

Date of Judgment: July 29, 2026

Area of Law: Criminal Law, Constitutional Law, Sentencing, Clemency Powers

Judgment in Brief

The Supreme Court dismissed four writ petitions filed under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the sentence of "imprisonment for the remainder of natural life without remission" imposed on the petitioners. The Court held that:

1. The "special category" sentence of imprisonment for the remainder of natural life is constitutional and valid, as affirmed by the Constitution Bench in Union of India v. V. Sriharan (2016). The petitioners could not challenge this settled position before a two-judge Bench.

2. Judicial review of the President's clemency power under Article 72 is extremely limited. It is available only on grounds of non-application of mind, mala fides, extraneous considerations, exclusion of relevant materials, or arbitrariness. None of these grounds were made out in the present cases.

3. Petitioners who have not exhausted statutory remedies (such as remission applications under Section 432 CrPC) cannot directly approach this Court under Article 32.

4. Once the President has exercised the power of clemency and modified the sentence, the Court cannot sit in appeal over that executive decision.

Relevant Facts

Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 553 of 2023 (Ramasrey @ Fakkad): The petitioner was convicted under Sections 364A, 302, and 201 IPC and sentenced to death by the Trial Court. The High Court modified the sentence to "imprisonment for the remainder of natural life." His SLP was dismissed as withdrawn on August 3, 2015. He challenged the sentence, arguing that the IPC only provides for death or imprisonment for life, not imprisonment for the remainder of natural life.

Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 42 of 2024 (Chander Kant Jha): The petitioner was convicted under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to death. The High Court modified the sentence to "remainder of natural life without remission." The State's appeal was dismissed on February 11, 2019. He raised similar grounds as Ramasrey.

Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 69 of 2025 (Atbir Singh): The petitioner was convicted under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced to death, confirmed by the High Court. His appeal, review, and curative petitions were dismissed. His mercy petition under Article 72 was accepted on November 15, 2012, and his sentence was modified to "imprisonment for the remainder of natural life without parole." He challenged the sentence on similar grounds.

Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 198 of 2025 (Sarabjit Singh, Gurdev Singh, and Satnam Singh): The petitioners were convicted under Sections 302/307/148/149 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, and sentenced to death, confirmed by the High Court. Their appeals were dismissed by the Supreme Court. Mercy petitions were accepted, modifying the sentence to "imprisonment for the remainder of natural life with no remission." They raised similar grounds.

Issues Before the Court

1. Whether the sentence of "imprisonment for the remainder of natural life" is unconstitutional, considering that the IPC only provides for death or imprisonment for life under Section 302?

2. Whether judicial review of the exercise of clemency powers by the President of India under Article 72 is permissible, and if so, on what grounds?

3. Whether it is open to this Court to modify a sentence already modified by the President's exercise of clemency powers under Article 72?

4. Whether the petitioners' writ petitions under Article 32 are maintainable?

Legal Framework

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.