Mandatory Vs Discretionary Sentencing
1. Introduction: Sentencing in Criminal Law
Sentencing is the judicial determination of punishment for an offender after conviction. The goal is to:
Punish offenders (retribution)
Deter crime (deterrence)
Rehabilitate offenders (reform)
Protect society (incapacitation)
There are two main approaches:
Mandatory Sentencing
Discretionary Sentencing
2. Mandatory Sentencing
Definition:
Mandatory sentencing refers to statutorily prescribed punishments that judges must impose upon conviction, leaving no discretion regarding the type or length of sentence.
Key Features:
Minimum punishment fixed by law
No consideration for mitigating factors in deciding the sentence
Often applied to serious crimes or policy-sensitive offenses
Examples in India:
Death penalty for repeat offenders in NDPS Act (commercial quantity) – Section 31A
Minimum 7 years imprisonment for certain terrorism offenses under UAPA
Section 376(2) IPC (rape under aggravating circumstances) – prescribes minimum 10 years
Advantages:
Ensures uniformity and predictability
Acts as deterrent for serious crimes
Disadvantages:
Ignores individual circumstances
Can lead to disproportionate punishment
Reduces judicial discretion
3. Discretionary Sentencing
Definition:
Discretionary sentencing allows the judge to consider circumstances of the crime and offender to determine appropriate punishment within statutory limits.
Key Features:
Flexible, case-by-case approach
Takes into account:
Age of offender
Socioeconomic background
Mitigating or aggravating factors
Possibility of reform
Examples in India:
Section 302 IPC (murder): Punishment can be death or life imprisonment
Section 376 IPC (rape): Courts may award minimum or maximum term based on facts
Advantages:
Promotes fairness and proportionality
Allows for rehabilitation-focused sentencing
Disadvantages:
Can lead to inconsistency between cases
Potential for bias or arbitrariness
4. Key Case Laws Illustrating Mandatory and Discretionary Sentencing
(1) Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684 – Discretionary Death Penalty
Facts:
Convicted of murder. Law prescribed death or life imprisonment.
Held:
Supreme Court held that death penalty should be imposed only in “rarest of rare” cases.
Courts must consider mitigating circumstances.
Significance:
Established discretionary sentencing principle for capital punishment in India.
Even if law allows death, judicial discretion is paramount.
(2) Santosh Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (2010) 7 SCC 734 – Discretion in Death Penalty
Facts:
Convicted under Section 302 IPC.
Held:
Supreme Court reinforced rarest of rare doctrine.
Death sentence not mandatory; life imprisonment can be imposed if mitigating factors exist.
Significance:
Confirms that even for serious crimes, mandatory death is unconstitutional; courts must exercise discretion.
(3) State of Tamil Nadu v. Suhas Katti (2004) 5 SCC 709 – Mandatory Minimum Sentencing
Facts:
Convicted under Section 67 of IT Act for obscene messages, law prescribed minimum 3 years imprisonment.
Held:
Court held minimum sentence is mandatory; discretion limited.
Significance:
Shows statutory prescriptions reduce judicial discretion.
Mandatory sentencing can sometimes override individual circumstances.
(4) Union of India v. Sanjay Dutt (1994) – Discretionary Sentencing in Terrorism Cases
Facts:
Convicted under TADA (Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act); law prescribed life or up to death.
Held:
Supreme Court considered age, role, and remorse before imposing life imprisonment instead of death.
Significance:
Illustrates discretion in serious offenses, balancing punishment and mitigation.
(5) NDPS Act Cases – Mandatory Sentencing for Commercial Quantity
Case Example: Jagdish v. State of Punjab (1995)
Facts:
Convicted for trafficking commercial quantity of heroin.
Held:
NDPS Act mandates death penalty for repeat offenders.
Court emphasized statutory prescription leaves little room for discretion.
Significance:
Illustrates mandatory sentencing in drug trafficking, contrasting with murder cases.
(6) Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014) 3 SCC 1 – Death Penalty for Prisoners
Facts:
Convicted prisoner on death row filed for commutation.
Held:
Supreme Court emphasized judicial discretion in evaluating delay, age, and reform prospects.
Significance:
Even if law allows death penalty, courts can exercise discretion for fairness.
(7) K. Anbazhagan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2004) 1 SCC 682 – Judicial Discretion in Rape Cases
Facts:
Convicted under Section 376 IPC.
Held:
Courts must consider mitigating factors such as age, role, and mental condition before deciding sentence.
Significance:
Highlights importance of proportionality and fairness in sentencing.
5. Comparative Summary Table
| Aspect | Mandatory Sentencing | Discretionary Sentencing |
|---|---|---|
| Definition | Statutorily fixed punishment | Judge decides within legal limits |
| Scope | Little to no judicial discretion | High judicial discretion |
| Examples | NDPS Act repeat offender, Minimum punishment for TADA | Murder under IPC, Rape under IPC, NDPS first offense |
| Advantages | Uniformity, deterrence | Fairness, proportionality, reform potential |
| Disadvantages | Harsh, may ignore circumstances | Inconsistent, potential bias |
| Key Case | Jagdish v. State of Punjab (1995) | Bachan Singh v. Punjab (1980) |
6. Key Observations
Mandatory sentencing ensures predictability and deterrence, particularly in drug trafficking and terrorism.
Discretionary sentencing allows judges to balance severity with individual circumstances, promoting fairness.
Indian judiciary generally prefers discretion for serious crimes like murder, but mandatory provisions exist for statutory offenses like NDPS repeat offenses.
Courts often combine both approaches, giving some discretion even where law prescribes minimum punishment.
RELATED Blog
0 comments