In July when hearing a petition filed by the Centre against the Tamil Nadu government's decision to release seven persons convicted for their role in the assassination of former prime minister Rajiv Gandhi, a five-member bench headed by Chief Justice H L Dattu observed, "What is the point in keeping a man in jail for his whole life. Give him the death sentence. That would be better." The observation was a loud comment on life imprisonment as a deterrent and life in general. The bench had noted that even prisoners need a modicum of hope to take them through life and if that hope is snatched away from them, there is no point in living.
In a majority order passed on Wednesday, the court overturned the popular belief that life imprisonment meant imprisonment for 14 years and stated that a life term meant imprisonment for the remaining portion of life. It also held that since the seven persons convicted in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case were convicted under a Central law and by the CBI the State government had no power to order their release without concurrence of the Centre. It might be recalled that the Tamil Nadu government had taken the decision to release that the convicts consequent on an order of the Supreme Court remitting their death sentences to life imprisonment. The decision of the TN government was based on the 'mistaken' belief that life imprisonment meant imprisonment for 14 years.
Now how does this reconcile with an earlier observation of the court that life imprisonment without any hope of parole is equivalent to death? The Supreme Court while laying down the law on life imprisonment and remission of sentence did not interfere with the executive powers of a government to remit sentences. This power to grant parole has been retained with a rider that in the case of life imprisonment it cannot be reduced to less than 14 years.
The order of the Supreme Court has accomplished three things. First, it set the record straight on the term of life imprisonment. Second, it clearly demarcated the powers of the Centre and State to grant remission. Thirdly, it retained the power of the executive to grant parole or remission of sentence.
Of the three it is the first that will have a calming effect on law abiding citizens who seek redressal and justice from the judicial system. If there was a clamour for the death sentence it was because the thought of seeing a person convicted of a heinous crime walk free after 14 years was revolting and the Supreme Court rightly noted that leniency in sentence would eventually result in law and order problems. Governments, both State and Central, have failed in their duty to curb and control crime and if leniency is shown at the time of sentencing and in carrying out that sentence people will start taking law into their own hands.
Given the manner in which law and order has deteriorated, there are calls for harsh punishments and the prison system is increasingly being viewed as place of punishment. The Supreme Court's order, in a way, retains the original idea of a prison being a place for reform without losing sight of the axiom that justice has to not only be done but also seen to be done.
