“LIFE IMPRISONMENT IN INDIA: LACK OF CLARITY AND THE NEED FOR STATUTORY DEFINITION”
AUTHOR – PRABHMEET KAUR, STUDENT AT AMITY UNIVERSITY NOIDA
BEST CITATION – PRABHMEET KAUR, “LIFE IMPRISONMENT IN INDIA: LACK OF CLARITY AND THE NEED FOR STATUTORY DEFINITION”, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (5) OF 2026, PG. 591-600, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344.
1.CONSTITUTIONAL DIMENSIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS CONCERNS
1.1 Article 14 – Equality and Arbitrariness
Article 14 of the Constitution of India guarantees the principle of equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. It represents one of the most fundamental values of the Indian constitutional framework and acts as a safeguard against arbitrary state action. Within the criminal justice system, Article 14 plays a crucial role in ensuring fairness, particularly in matters relating to sentencing and remission.
The concept of equality under Article 14 does not mean that the law must treat all individuals in exactly the same way. Rather, it requires that individuals placed in similar circumstances should be treated alike. Any differentiation must be based on reasonable classification and must have a rational connection with the objective sought to be achieved. Over time, the Supreme Court has expanded the interpretation of Article 14 and held that arbitrariness itself is contrary to the idea of equality.[1]
In the context of life imprisonment, issues relating to sentencing discretion and remission policies often raise concerns regarding unequal treatment. Courts exercise discretion while determining the appropriate sentence, and executive authorities exercise discretion when granting remission or premature release. While such discretion is necessary for the functioning of the justice system, it must be exercised in a fair, reasonable, and non-arbitrary manner to comply with the constitutional mandate of equality.
Two important areas where Article 14 becomes particularly relevant are discretionary sentencing and the unequal application of remission policies.
[1] E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu – The Supreme Court held that arbitrariness is antithetical to equality under Article 14.