Ramasrey @ Fakkadv.State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors

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 His SLP was dismissed as withdrawn on August 3, 2015.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

• Article 32 of the Constitution of India: Remedies for enforcement of fundamental rights. Described by Dr. Ambedkar as the "most important Article" and by the Supreme Court as the "heart and soul" of the Constitution.

• Article 72 of the Constitution of India: Power of the President to grant pardons, reprieves, respites, or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit, or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence.

• Article 161 of the Constitution of India: Power of the Governor of a State to grant pardons, reprieves, respites, or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit, or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the State extends.

• Section 45 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Defines "life" as the life of a human being, unless the contrary appears from the context.

• Section 53 of the IPC: Enumerates punishments—death; imprisonment for life; imprisonment (rigorous or simple); forfeiture of property; fine.

• Section 302 of the IPC: Punishment for murder—death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.

• Section 2(17) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS): Defines "life" as the life of a human being, unless the contrary appears from the context.

• Section 4 of the BNS: Enumerates punishments—death; imprisonment for life; imprisonment (rigorous or simple); forfeiture of property; fine; community service.

• Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Power of the appropriate Government to suspend or remit sentences.

• Section 433-A of the CrPC: Restriction on remission of sentence in certain cases.

Important Precedents Relied Upon

1. Daryao v. State of U.P. (1962) 1 SCR 574 (Constitution Bench)

The Court held that the right to move the Supreme Court under Article 32 is a fundamental right and the Supreme Court is the "protector and guarantor" of fundamental rights.

2. Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. Union of India (2023)

A petition under Article 32 by a convict seeking the benefit of a judgment causing a shift in jurisprudence subsequent to conviction is maintainable. Article 32 was described as the "heart and soul" of the Constitution.

3. Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India (2023)

The jurisdiction under Article 32 is extraordinary, equitable, and discretionary. Petitioners must come with clean hands and disclose all facts.

4. Epuru Sudhakar v. Govt. of A.P. (2006) 8 SCC 161

The powers under Articles 72 and 161 are construed in the widest possible terms. Judicial review is available only on limited grounds: non-application of mind, mala fides, extraneous considerations, exclusion of relevant materials, or arbitrariness.

5. Maru Ram v. Union of India (1981) 1 SCC 107

Both the President and the Governor, in exercise of clemency powers, must act with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.

6. K.M. Nanavati v. State of Bombay (1961) 1 SCR 497

Governor's clemency power cannot be exercised to suspend a sentence while a particular case is sub judice before the Supreme Court.

7. Kehar Singh v. Union of India (1989) 1 SCC 204

The President under Article 72 can examine the merits of the matter. The exercise of this power is executive in character.

8. Union of India v. V. Sriharan (2016) 7 SCC 1 (Constitution Bench)

This is the most crucial precedent. The Constitution Bench answered two questions:

• Meaning of Life Imprisonment: All five judges held that "imprisonment for life" under Section 53 read with Section 45 IPC means imprisonment for the rest of the life of the convict.

• Special Category of Sentence: By a majority of 3:2, the Court held that the "special category" of sentence—imprisonment for the remainder of natural life—is valid and well-founded. The minority held that such a sentence beyond the scope of remission is unconstitutional.

Key Extracts:

• F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla J. (Majority): "Imprisonment for life in terms of Section 53 read with Section 45 of the Penal Code only means imprisonment for the rest of the life of the convict... The ratio laid down in Swamy Shraddananda (2) that a special category of sentence... can be substituted by the punishment of imprisonment for life or for a term exceeding 14 years and put that category beyond application of remission is well founded."

• Uday U. Lalit J. (Minority): "It would not be open to the Court to make any special category of sentence in substitution of death penalty and put that category beyond application of remission."

9. Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State of Karnataka (2008) 13 SCC 767

Laid the foundation for the "special category" sentence. The Court held that there is a "vast hiatus between 14 years' imprisonment and death" and courts should expand their sentencing options to impose imprisonment for the remainder of natural life in cases where death penalty is not warranted but 14 years' imprisonment would be grossly disproportionate.

10. Joseph v. State of Kerala (2021)

Courts may impose sentences that go beyond 14 or 20 years in view of Sriharan, but it is not open for the State Government by executive instruction to take such a role.

11. Pyare Lal v. State of Haryana (2011) 3 SCC 342

Listed the grounds for judicial review of clemency powers.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

I. Maintainability of Article 32 Petitions

The Court began by addressing the objection to the maintainability of the petitions under Article 32.

The Court's Finding: While Article 32 is a fundamental right and the Supreme Court is the "protector and guarantor" of fundamental rights, this jurisdiction cannot be used to circumvent other procedures.

The Court's Observation: "The right of a prisoner to approach this Court obviously cannot be outrightly restricted but this right cannot be used to circumvent other procedures, using it as a shortcut to ventilate their grievances before a Court of law."

Application to the Facts:

• Ramasrey @ Fakkad had not taken recourse to statutory or constitutional remedies (remission applications under Section 432 CrPC or clemency petitions under Article 72/161).

• Chander Kant Jha had also not preferred remission petitions.

• Without exhausting these remedies, a direct petition under Article 32 was not maintainable.

II. The Constitutionality of "Imprisonment for Remainder of Natural Life"

The petitioners argued that the IPC only provides for death or imprisonment for life under Section 302, and "imprisonment for the remainder of natural life" is unconstitutional.

The Court's Response: This argument is completely untenable in view of the Constitution Bench decision in Union of India v. V. Sriharan.

The Court's Reasoning:

• A Constitution Bench (5 Judges) has already held that:
  "Imprisonment for life" means imprisonment for the rest of the life of the convict.
  The "special category" of sentence—imprisonment for the remainder of natural life—is valid and well-founded.

• The petitioners are challenging this before a two-judge Bench.

• Such a challenge is "a misuse, if not the abuse of process of law."

The Court's Observation:

"A five-judge Bench has said that sentences for the remainder of natural life are valid. Where does the scope arise for it to be contended that such sentences are invalid/unconstitutional... that too before a Bench of two judges? We can only say that such an endeavour is a misuse, if not the abuse of process of law."

III. The Right to Remission

The petitioners argued that the "without remission" clause defeats the statutory rights under Section 432 of the CrPC.

The Court's Finding: This argument is also answered by the Constitution Bench in Sriharan.

The Court's Reasoning:

• When a sentence is awarded for "imprisonment for life" without the categorical addition of "without remission," the power of the State under Section 432 CrPC is unaffected.

• In those select few cases where the "without remission" condition is utilized, it is done so keeping in view the gravity of the crime and the nature of the offence.

• The statutory right being denuded in such cases cannot be termed as offensive to the Constitution.

The Court's Observation:

"The statutory right being denuded, cannot be termed to be offensive to the Constitution."

IV. Judicial Review of Clemency Powers

The petitioners whose mercy petitions were accepted by the President sought further modification of their sentences.

The Court's Finding: Judicial review of the President's clemency power is extremely limited.

Grounds for Judicial Review:

1. The order has been passed without application of mind.

2. The order is mala fide.

3. The order has been passed on extraneous or wholly irrelevant considerations.

4. Relevant materials have been kept out of consideration.

5. The order suffers from arbitrariness.

The Court's Reasoning:

• None of these grounds were met in the present cases.

• The Court cannot sit in appeal over the exercise of an executive power.

• If the petitioners' argument were accepted, the Court would be sitting in appeal (not judicial review) over the exercise of an executive power, which is not permissible.

The Court's Observation:

"The powers given to the President or the Governor are unaffected and unencumbered by any other provision of the Constitution. If the argument advanced by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is accepted, we would be sitting in appeal, (not judicial review) over the exercise of an executive power, which is not permissible."

V. The Distinction Between Ramasrey and Atbir/Sarabjit

The Court drew a distinction between the petitioners:

• Ramasrey and Chander Kant Jha: Had not exhausted statutory remedies. Their petitions were dismissed on the ground of maintainability.

• Atbir Singh and Sarabjit Singh/Others: Their mercy petitions had already been accepted by the President. Their challenge was to the modified sentence. The Court held that judicial review of the President's action was not available in the absence of any of the recognized grounds.

Ratio Decidendi and Key Legal Principles

1. Constitutionality of "Imprisonment for Remainder of Natural Life"

The "special category" sentence of imprisonment for the remainder of natural life is constitutional and valid, as held by the Constitution Bench in Union of India v. V. Sriharan (2016). A two-judge Bench cannot entertain a challenge to this settled position.

2. "Life Imprisonment" Means Rest of Life

"Imprisonment for life" under Section 53 read with Section 45 of the IPC means imprisonment for the rest of the life of the convict, or the remainder of the convict's life.

3. Judicial Review of Clemency Powers is Limited

Judicial review of the President's power under Article 72 (or Governor's power under Article 161) is available only on extremely limited grounds: non-application of mind, mala fides, extraneous considerations, exclusion of relevant materials, or arbitrariness.

4. No Appeal Over Clemency Decisions

The Court cannot sit in appeal over the exercise of clemency powers. If it did, it would be sitting in appeal (not judicial review) over an executive power, which is not permissible.

5. Exhaustion of Remedies

A petitioner who has not exhausted statutory remedies (such as remission applications under Section 432 CrPC) cannot directly approach this Court under Article 32.

6. Article 32 Cannot Be Used as a Shortcut

While Article 32 is a fundamental right, it cannot be used to circumvent other procedures or as a shortcut to ventilate grievances before a Court of law.

7. The "Without Remission" Condition

Where the "without remission" condition is utilized in a sentence, it is done so keeping in view the gravity of the crime and the nature of the offence. The statutory right to remission being denuded in such cases is not unconstitutional.

Important Court Observations

• "A five-judge Bench has said that sentences for the remainder of natural life are valid. Where does the scope arise for it to be contended that such sentences are invalid/unconstitutional... that too before a Bench of two judges? We can only say that such an endeavour is a misuse, if not the abuse of process of law."

• "The right of a prisoner to approach this Court obviously cannot be outrightly restricted but this right cannot be used to circumvent other procedures, using it as a shortcut to ventilate their grievances before a Court of law."

• "The powers given to the President or the Governor are unaffected and unencumbered by any other provision of the Constitution. If the argument advanced by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is accepted, we would be sitting in appeal, (not judicial review) over the exercise of an executive power, which is not permissible."

• "The statutory right being denuded, cannot be termed to be offensive to the Constitution."

• "Imprisonment for life in terms of Section 53 read with Section 45 of the Penal Code only means imprisonment for the rest of the life of the convict." (Quoting from Sriharan)

Final Outcome

Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 553 of 2023 (Ramasrey @ Fakkad): Dismissed. Petitioner had not exhausted statutory remedies.

Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 42 of 2024 (Chander Kant Jha): Dismissed. Petitioner had not exhausted statutory remedies.

Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 69 of 2025 (Atbir Singh): Dismissed. Judicial review of President's clemency order not available in the absence of any of the recognized grounds.

Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 198 of 2025 (Sarabjit Singh & Ors.): Dismissed. Judicial review of President's clemency order not available in the absence of any of the recognized grounds.

Pending Applications: Disposed of.

Practical Impact and Legal Strategy

Why the Judgment Matters

1. Reaffirms the Constitutionality of the "Special Category" Sentence

The judgment reaffirms that the "special category" sentence of imprisonment for the remainder of natural life is constitutional and valid. This provides certainty to courts and litigants regarding sentencing options in heinous crimes where death penalty is not warranted but 14 years' imprisonment would be grossly disproportionate.

2. Settles the Meaning of "Life Imprisonment"

The judgment reiterates that "imprisonment for life" means imprisonment for the rest of the life of the convict. This settles any ambiguity regarding the duration of life imprisonment.

3. Limits Challenges to Clemency Powers

The judgment significantly limits the scope for challenging clemency decisions. Judicial review is available only on extremely limited grounds, and courts cannot sit in appeal over executive clemency decisions.

4. Prevents Abuse of Article 32

The judgment prevents the misuse of Article 32 as a shortcut to ventilate grievances without exhausting other remedies. Petitioners must exhaust statutory remedies before approaching the Supreme Court directly.

5. Protects the Finality of Clemency Decisions

The judgment protects the finality of clemency decisions made by the President and Governors. Once the President has exercised clemency powers, the Court cannot modify the sentence unless one of the recognized grounds for judicial review is made out.

How Advocates and Litigants May Rely Upon It

For Convicts/Prisoners:

• Cannot challenge the "special category" sentence as unconstitutional before a two-judge Bench, as it has been upheld by a Constitution Bench.

• Must exhaust statutory remedies (remission applications under Section 432 CrPC) before approaching the Supreme Court under Article 32.

• Cannot seek modification of a sentence already modified by the President's clemency powers, unless one of the recognized grounds for judicial review is made out.

For the State/Prosecution:

• Cite this judgment to oppose challenges to the "special category" sentence.

• Argue that judicial review of clemency powers is extremely limited.

• Rely on the judgment to argue that Article 32 petitions are not maintainable without exhausting other remedies.

For Advocates:

• Cite this judgment to argue the constitutionality of the "special category" sentence.

• Rely on the judgment to argue the limited scope of judicial review of clemency powers.

• Use the judgment to argue that Article 32 cannot be used as a shortcut.

Can It Be Cited Before High Courts, Tribunals, or Subordinate Courts?

Yes, absolutely. This is a judgment of the Supreme Court of India (2026 INSC 764) and constitutes a binding precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. It can be cited before:

• The Supreme Court of India

• High Courts

• Sessions Courts and Trial Courts

• Any authority exercising criminal jurisdiction

Practical Implications for Future Litigation

1. Challenges to "Special Category" Sentence Barred

Convicted prisoners cannot challenge the "special category" sentence of imprisonment for the remainder of natural life as unconstitutional, as it has been upheld by a Constitution Bench in Sriharan.

2. Exhaustion of Remedies is Mandatory

Petitioners must exhaust statutory remedies (remission applications under Section 432 CrPC) before approaching the Supreme Court under Article 32. A direct petition is not maintainable without exhausting other remedies.

3. Clemency Decisions are Final

Once the President or Governor has exercised clemency powers, the Court cannot modify the sentence unless one of the recognized grounds for judicial review is made out: non-application of mind, mala fides, extraneous considerations, exclusion of relevant materials, or arbitrariness.

4. Life Imprisonment Means Rest of Life

"Imprisonment for life" means imprisonment for the rest of the life of the convict. This is the settled position of law.

5. The "Without Remission" Condition is Valid

Where the "without remission" condition is utilized, it is valid and not unconstitutional. It is used in select cases keeping in view the gravity of the crime and the nature of the offence.

6. Article 32 Cannot Be Used as a Shortcut

Article 32 cannot be used as a shortcut to circumvent other procedures. Petitioners must demonstrate that coming directly to the Supreme Court was essential and that a writ petition before the High Court may not be more appropriate.

7. Binding Nature of Constitution Bench Decisions

A two-judge Bench cannot entertain a challenge to a decision of a Constitution Bench. The only remedy is to seek review or to refer the matter to a larger Bench.

8. Impact on Pending Litigation

The judgment will impact all pending litigations where convicts are challenging the "special category" sentence or seeking modification of clemency decisions.

9. Future Sentencing

Courts can continue to impose the "special category" sentence of imprisonment for the remainder of natural life in appropriate cases, as it is constitutional and valid.

10. Clemency Powers Remain Unencumbered

The President's and Governor's clemency powers remain unencumbered and unaffected by any other provision of the Constitution. Judicial review is limited to exceptional circumstances.