Public opinion significantly influences sentencing policies in democratic societies, especially in India, where debates around harsh punishments for heinous crimes, including life imprisonment till death, have gained prominence. The Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) incorporates life imprisonment till death as a crucial element of its retributive justice framework, often viewed as an alternative to the death penalty. This article examines how public sentiment shapes sentencing policies, focusing on implications of life imprisonment till death as one of the sentencing policies given under the BNS.

It evaluates the philosophical foundations of retributive justice, its constitutionality and the ethical implications of such severe punishments. By analyzing the interplay between public opinion, judicial decisions, and legislative reforms, the article explores whether life imprisonment till death serves as a necessary response to societal demands for justice or whether it raises concerns about proportionality and fairness. Ultimately, it aims to contribute to the broader debate on the role of public opinion in shaping legal reforms and the ethical implications of life imprisonment till death in India's criminal justice system.

Introduction:
In democracies, public opinion plays a crucial role in influencing legislative and judicial policies, particularly in the realm of criminal justice. High-profile criminal cases, such as the Nirbhaya gang rape in 2012, have galvanized public sentiment in India, leading to demands for stringent punishments and significant changes in sentencing policies. In response to public outcry, India's criminal justice system has evolved to incorporate harsher sentences, including life imprisonment till death, a form of retributive justice designed to permanently remove dangerous offenders from society without the possibility of parole.

The Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) formalizes life imprisonment till death as a critical element of India's penal system. This punishment, reserved for heinous crimes such as terrorism, rape, and murder, reflects the principles of retributive justice, where the punishment is proportionate to the crime. However, the imposition of such a sentence raises complex questions about the role of public opinion in determining punishment severity, and whether this public influence may compromise fairness, proportionality, and the broader principles of justice.

Furthermore, ethical concerns regarding human rights, rehabilitation, and the potential for redemption also come into play when considering the justification for life imprisonment till death. As public sentiment continues to drive calls for harsher penalties, the judiciary must navigate these pressures while ensuring that justice is served in a fair and impartial manner.

Issues and Role of Public Opinion in Shaping Sentencing Policies

Public opinion is a powerful force in shaping governmental policies, particularly in areas concerning public safety and criminal justice. In India, where crime rates and public safety are of pressing concern, the public’s expectations for justice play a significant role in influencing lawmakers and judicial bodies. High-profile cases of violent crimes, including murder and rape, often lead to widespread public demands for stricter sentencing policies. For example, the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act of 2013, which introduced harsher penalties for sexual offenses, was largely a response to public outrage following the Nirbhaya gang rape case.

Similarly, the inclusion of life imprisonment till death as a sentencing option under the BNS can be attributed to societal concerns about the inadequacy of existing punishments for heinous crimes. However, there is ongoing debate about the extent to which public opinion should influence sentencing policy.

Critics argue that public sentiment, driven largely by media coverage, can create undue pressure on the judiciary to impose harsher sentences, ultimately leads to disproportionately harsh sentences that may not align with constitutional principles or human rights standards. While public opinion is crucial in a democratic society, judicial discretion must remain a cornerstone of sentencing decisions to ensure fairness and proportionality.

Secondly, populism risks turning sentencing policy into a tool for appeasing public outrage, compromising the principles of fairness and proportionality. This could lead to excessive punishment in cases where less severe sentences might be more appropriate. Also, the lack of informed public debate plays a key role in shaping public opinion, particularly in high-profile criminal cases. Sensationalized reporting of crimes involving violence or terrorism often leads to heightened fear and outrage, with calls for severe punishments like life imprisonment till death or the death penalty.

Implications of Life Imprisonment Till Death and Retributive Justice in the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita

Conceptual Framework and Constitutionality of Life Imprisonment Till Death

One of the most notable developments in Indian sentencing policy has been the formalization of "life imprisonment till death" as an alternative to the death penalty in cases where the offense is grave but not deemed "rarest of rare." This trend gained momentum in the wake of public outrage following high-profile cases like the 2012 Nirbhaya gang rape, where the demand for harsh punishments led to the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act of 2013.

The Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), a revised framework of the IPC, solidified life imprisonment till death as a retributive punishment for egregious crimes like terrorism, rape, and multiple homicides. Life imprisonment till death under the BNS refers to a sentence where the convict is imprisoned for life, without the possibility of parole or remission. This form of punishment is reserved for particularly egregious crimes, such as terrorism, brutal murders, and repeated sexual offenses. It ensures that offenders are permanently excluded from society, thus addressing the public’s demand for justice and retribution.

The concept of retributive justice forms the foundation of life imprisonment till death. Retribution posits that punishment should be proportional to the crime committed, ensuring that offenders "pay" for their actions by serving a penalty that reflects the severity of their wrongdoing. Life imprisonment till death, in this context, serves as a fitting response for crimes so heinous that they warrant the permanent exclusion of the offender from society.

Moreover, the use of life imprisonment till death aligns with the "rarest of rare" doctrine established by the Indian judiciary in cases like Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980). This doctrine limits the use of the death penalty to extraordinary cases, while life imprisonment till death provides a severe yet humane alternative for cases that fall short of warranting capital punishment.

The constitutionality of life imprisonment till death has been upheld by the Indian judiciary, provided that it is imposed following a fair trial and in accordance with the principles of fairness and proportionality. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, and any deprivation of this right must be done in accordance with the "procedure established by law."

Judicial Precedents and Interpretation

The Indian judiciary has played a significant role in defining and interpreting life imprisonment till death. In landmark cases like Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka (2008) and Union of India v. Sriharan (2016), the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of life imprisonment till death while emphasizing the need for judicial discretion in its imposition.

These cases also highlight the importance of ensuring that such severe punishments are applied only in cases where the crime’s gravity justifies such a response. In Swamy Shraddananda, the Supreme Court clarified that life imprisonment without remission is a valid sentencing option for crimes that do not warrant the death penalty but still demand a severe response. This judgment reinforced the idea that life imprisonment till death is not merely an alternative to capital punishment but a distinct form of retributive justice that ensures that certain offenders are permanently excluded from society.

In Sriharan, the Court addressed the issue of judicial discretion in sentencing, emphasizing the need for a careful assessment of the facts and circumstances of each case before imposing life imprisonment till death. The Court also reaffirmed the principle that life imprisonment till death should be reserved for the most egregious crimes, where the moral outrage of society demands a punishment of such severity.

Ethical Concerns and Human Rights Implications

Life imprisonment till death raises significant ethical concerns, particularly in terms of human rights and the treatment of prisoners. From a human rights perspective, the imposition of life imprisonment till death without the possibility of parole or remission can be seen as a violation of the right to dignity, as it effectively condemns the individual to a life of permanent incarceration without any chance of rehabilitation or reform. The United Nations Human Rights Committee has expressed concerns about life sentences without parole, arguing that such sentences may be incompatible with the prohibition against cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment under international human rights law.

While the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita allows for life imprisonment till death in cases of the most serious crimes, the absence of any possibility of release raises important ethical questions about the proportionality of the punishment and its impact on the individual's human dignity. While life imprisonment till death may satisfy the public’s demand for justice in cases of particularly heinous crimes, it also raises concerns about whether the punishment is consistent with the principles of fairness and proportionality that underpin the rule of law.

Proportionality between Morality and Retributive Justice

Retributive justice emphasizes the moral imperative of imposing punishments that are proportional to the crime committed. In the case of life imprisonment till death, the punishment is deemed an appropriate response to crimes that shock the conscience of society. This form of punishment satisfies the public's desire for retribution, ensuring that offenders are held accountable for their actions through permanent incarceration. However, the debate over retributive justice also raises questions about fairness, rehabilitation, and the potential for reform. Critics argue that life imprisonment till death precludes any

possibility of rehabilitation or reintegration, denying offenders the opportunity to change and rebuild their lives. This raises ethical concerns about whether society should continue to impose such extreme punishments in a system that claims to value human dignity and reform.

The tension between retributive justice and other sentencing goals, such as deterrence and rehabilitation, is particularly evident in life imprisonment till death. While this form of punishment addresses the public’s demand for justice, it also calls into question whether it aligns with the broader goals of the criminal justice system, including the potential for rehabilitation.

Conclusion
Life imprisonment till death, as codified under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, represents a regime of retributive justice that responds to public demands for severe punishments in cases of heinous crimes. Public opinion has played a significant role in shaping sentencing policy in India, particularly in cases involving sexual violence, terrorism, and other serious offenses.

While life imprisonment till death provides an alternative to the death penalty, it raises important ethical and human rights concerns, particularly in terms of its impact on the possibility of rehabilitation and the rights of the convicted individual. The role of public opinion in shaping life imprisonment till death presents several issues, including media influence, populism, and the potential compromise of judicial independence. While public sentiment is a valuable consideration in a democratic society, it is crucial for the judiciary and policymakers to ensure that sentencing policies are grounded in reasoned legal principles rather than emotional reactions to public outcry.

Case Laws

1. Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab (1980) AIR 1980 SC 898; (1980) 2 SCC 684
2. Swammy Sharddananda vs State of Karnataka (2008) 13 SCC 767
3. Union of India vs Shrihariharan (2016) 7 SCC 1; AIR 2016 SC 381

References:

• https://search.app/FdRLgtjaLb6h6SBZ7
• https://www.pudr.org/press-statements/life-imprisonment-till-death-a-regime-of-retributive-punishments-under-bharatiya-nyaya-sanhita/
• https://lawschoolpolicyreview.com/2022/08/22/commutation-of-death-sentence-balancing-the-scales-of-retributive-and-restorative-justice/
• https://blog.ipleaders.in/life-imprisonment-in-india/