Mahendra Vishwanath Kawchale v. Union of India, 2025
The decision emphasizes the balance between retributive justice and reformative possibilities.
Judgement Details
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision
20 September 2025
Judges
Justice S. Ravindra Bhat
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Facts of the Case
-
The petitioner challenged the mandatory sentencing scheme under Section 376DA IPC, which prescribes life imprisonment for the remainder of the natural life of the convict.
-
The case was brought as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL).
-
The primary concern was whether such mandatory minimum sentences remove the scope for remission, which is a constitutional and statutory right.
Issues
-
Does sentencing under Section 376DA and 376DB IPC take away a convict’s right to seek remission?
-
Can remission be sought even when life imprisonment means for the remainder of natural life?
-
Is it constitutionally valid to prescribe a mandatory single sentence and no discretion to the court?
Judgement
-
The Court held that the right to seek remission is:
-
A constitutional right under Articles 72 & 161,
-
A statutory right under the CrPC or BNSS, and
-
Subject to State policies.
-
-
This right remains intact even in cases of Section 376DA and 376DB IPC, where punishment means life imprisonment till natural death.
-
The mere use of the term "shall" or mandatory language in sentencing does not negate the right to seek remission.
-
However, the Court did not decide the constitutional validity of the mandatory sentence clause in Section 376DA, stating that it needs to be addressed in a properly contested case, not in a PIL without factual context.
Held
-
The Right to seek remission continues even in the gravest offences, including sexual offences against minors punishable under 376DA/DB.
-
The Remission policies of each State, and the constitutional provisions, apply regardless of the severity of sentence.
-
There is no ruling was given on the validity of mandatory sentencing, but the issue was left open for future adjudication.
Analysis
-
The Court affirmed the principle that no punishment is beyond constitutional review, even in serious crimes.
-
It clarified the distinction between sentence awarded and the right to apply for remission—the former doesn’t eliminate the latter.
-
The decision emphasizes the balance between retributive justice and reformative possibilities.
-
By leaving the validity of mandatory sentencing open, the Court avoids a sweeping declaration in a PIL without individual facts, aligning with judicial restraint.