Introduction: Sentencing and Judicial Fairness
Sentencing is the most crucial phase of the criminal justice process, where the law’s abstract ideals meet the realities of human judgment. The sentence imposed by a court not only determines the fate of an offender but also mirrors the integrity and fairness of the judicial system. However, when irrelevant or prejudicial factors—such as race, caste, gender, political ideology, religion, or social status—influence sentencing decisions, the process becomes tainted by sentencing discrimination. Such discrimination subverts the principle of equality before law guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and compromises the impartiality expected from judicial officers.
Sentencing Disparity vs. Sentencing Discrimination
Sentencing Disparity vs. Sentencing Discrimination:
While sentencing disparity arises from inconsistencies in judicial interpretation, individual discretion, or differences in case circumstances, sentencing discrimination stems from bias. The former can be corrected through sentencing guidelines and precedent; the latter is far more insidious as it reflects deep-seated prejudices within the justice delivery system.
In short:
- Disparity = inconsistency in approach.
- Discrimination = injustice arising from bias.
Understanding Sentencing Discrimination
Understanding Sentencing Discrimination:
Sentencing discrimination occurs when non-legal factors—such as caste, class, religion, political ideology, gender, or ethnicity—are treated as aggravating or mitigating elements in deciding punishment. These factors are irrelevant to the culpability of the accused or the gravity of the offence, yet they often influence judicial reasoning.
Examples of Social Bias in Sentencing
For instance, the illiterate or the poor may be stereotyped as morally weak or prone to crime, while those of higher social standing may receive undue sympathy. Similarly, women offenders sometimes receive leniency based on traditional gender assumptions, while members of marginalized communities face harsher sentences due to social prejudice.
The Law Commission of India (262nd Report, 2015) explicitly observed that the death penalty in India disproportionately affects the poor and marginalized, revealing the presence of structural bias in sentencing. It recommended moving toward a fair and transparent sentencing policy framework.
Judicial Precedents in India
1. State of Karnataka v. Krishnappa (2000)
In this case, the court considered irrelevant factors such as illiteracy, caste, and intoxication while determining sentence for rape. The judgment was widely criticized for allowing socio-personal characteristics to influence sentencing, illustrating a classic example of sentencing discrimination. The Supreme Court later clarified that such factors should never overshadow the gravity of the crime or the rights of the victim.
2. Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal (1994)
Here, the Court emphasized that social status of the accused or victim cannot dictate sentencing. Dhananjoy, a security guard convicted of rape and murder, was awarded the death penalty. The Court stressed that leniency based on class or background would amount to injustice against the victim and society at large.
3. Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983)
While this case primarily addressed the rarest of rare doctrine, the Court also noted that sentencing must be free from discrimination, and should consider the balance between the crime and the criminal. Any preference or prejudice based on social class or caste violates the constitutional spirit of equality.
4. State of Punjab v. Prem Sagar (2008)
The Supreme Court criticized the lack of uniformity in sentencing and called for structured sentencing policy to prevent arbitrary or discriminatory outcomes. The Court acknowledged that unchecked judicial discretion can unintentionally perpetuate inequality.
5. Santa Singh v. State of Punjab (1976)
This case highlighted the need for considering individualized justice, but cautioned that the sentencing process must remain objective and transparent, ensuring that socio-economic background is not used either to unfairly punish or unduly protect an offender.
6. Rajendra Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1979)
Justice Krishna Iyer observed that “Equality before law is a constitutional guarantee, not a sentimental slogan.” The judgment criticized bias in capital punishment cases and emphasized the need for sentencing principles based on rational criteria rather than social prejudice.
International Judicial Perspective
1. Furman v. Georgia (1972)
The U.S. Supreme Court struck down the death penalty as unconstitutional due to its arbitrary and discriminatory application, particularly against African-American defendants. This landmark case established that unequal sentencing violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, mirroring India’s Article 14 principles.
2. McCleskey v. Kemp (1987)
Although the Court upheld the sentence, it acknowledged statistical evidence showing that African-American offenders were more likely to receive the death penalty—an alarming recognition of racial bias in sentencing.
3. R v. Smith (2001)
The House of Lords held that subjective factors like race, temperament, or personal sensitivity could not justify a reduced sentence, reinforcing the idea that sentencing should remain objective, consistent, and impartial.
4. R v. Hughes (2002)
In R v. Hughes [2002] 2 AC 259, the House of Lords reaffirmed that any form of personal bias or prejudice in sentencing undermines the rule of law and the principle of equality before the law.
Concrete Statistics on Racial Bias (US Context)
In the United States, where extensive empirical data on sentencing patterns is available, research consistently demonstrates racial bias in punishment outcomes:
Incarceration Rates
- Incarceration Rates:
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS, 2023) report (data as of 2021), the imprisonment rate for Black adults was approximately five times that of White adults — 1,154 per 100,000 for Black adults compared to 231 per 100,000 for White adults.
Drug Offenses
- Drug Offenses:
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU, 2022) reported that Black individuals are 3.6 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than White individuals, despite similar rates of drug use.
Sentencing Length
- Sentencing Length:
A U.S. Sentencing Commission (2017) report found that Black male offenders received sentences that were 19.1% longer than those of similarly situated White male offenders over the same period.
Death Penalty
- Death Penalty:
The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (2022) noted that 41.4% of individuals on death row were Black, even though Black Americans constitute only about 13.6% of the total U.S. population — a pattern consistent with the racial bias acknowledged in McCleskey v. Kemp (1987).
The Role of Implicit Bias
Sentencing discrimination is often subtle, operating through implicit biases. Judges, like all individuals, may unconsciously associate certain traits—such as caste, class, or gender—with criminality. These biases distort judgment and perpetuate systemic inequality.
For example, the Justice Verma Committee Report (2013) observed that judicial remarks reflecting gender stereotypes have led to undue leniency in sexual offence cases, eroding public confidence in justice delivery.
Constitutional and Ethical Dimensions
Sentencing discrimination directly violates the fundamental right to equality guaranteed under Article 14, the prohibition of discrimination under Article 15, and the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Together, these provisions form the constitutional trinity of justice—ensuring that every individual is treated equally before the law, free from arbitrary or prejudicial treatment.
Justice must be blind to identity but not to injustice. When sentencing outcomes vary based on caste, class, gender, or religion rather than the gravity of the offence, they undermine not only judicial impartiality but also the moral legitimacy of the legal system. The judiciary’s ethical duty demands that personal characteristics of the offender or victim should never replace legal reasoning. As Justice P.N. Bhagwati aptly remarked, “Law is not a respecter of persons; it knows neither prince nor pauper.”
Reforms and the Way Forward
1. Structured Sentencing Policy
Establish clear statutory sentencing guidelines to minimize arbitrary discretion. Both the Madhava Menon Committee (2003) and the Malimath Committee on Reforms of the Criminal Justice System (2003) strongly advocated for a structured policy to ensure consistency and proportionality in sentencing.
- Madhava Menon Committee (2003): The Committee recommended creating a Sentencing Commission as a statutory body to develop comprehensive sentencing guidelines. These would define presumptive ranges of punishment for various offenses, requiring judges to record written justifications for any deviation. The aim was to curb undue discretion and prevent bias arising from social or personal factors such as class, caste, or background.
- Malimath Committee (2003): The Committee proposed a bifurcated trial system, treating sentencing as a distinct stage after conviction. This would allow the court to transparently weigh aggravating and mitigating factors without prejudice. It also recommended fixed minimum and maximum punishments, requiring judges to explain any deviation, thus enhancing fairness and accountability.
2. Judicial Training on Unconscious Bias
Continuous education and sensitization programs should be introduced to help judges recognize and mitigate implicit biases related to caste, class, gender, or religion that may unconsciously influence sentencing decisions.
3. Empirical Data Analysis
The judiciary should periodically review sentencing patterns to detect disparities based on socio-economic factors. A national sentencing database can help identify systemic inequities and guide corrective reforms.
4. Transparency and Reasoned Orders
Detailed, reasoned sentencing orders must be made mandatory. This would ensure accountability and facilitate appellate scrutiny in cases where bias or arbitrariness is suspected.
5. Victim-Centric and Reform-Oriented Approach
Sentencing should balance proportionality, deterrence, and rehabilitation while remaining free from social or ideological prejudice. Justice must serve both the victim’s rights and the offender’s potential for reform.
The Justice Verma Committee Report (2013) further underscored the importance of gender neutrality and accountability in judicial decision-making. It emphasized that judicial reasoning must be free from patriarchal assumptions and that systemic reforms—such as police training, educational awareness, and procedural transparency—are vital to achieving equality in sentencing outcomes.
Emerging Opportunity under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023
The enactment of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023—replacing the colonial-era Indian Penal Code—marks a historic moment to institutionalize a structured and transparent sentencing framework in India. While the BNS modernizes substantive criminal law by redefining offences and introducing victim-centric provisions, it continues to leave sentencing largely to judicial discretion.
This transitional phase offers policymakers and the judiciary a vital opportunity to embed statutory sentencing guidelines, as long recommended by the Madhava Menon and Malimath Committees, into the broader architecture of criminal justice reform. A structured sentencing mechanism within the BNS framework would promote consistency, fairness, and safeguard against caste, class, or gender-based disparities—transforming India’s sentencing system into one that truly upholds the constitutional promise of equality before the law.
Conclusion
Sentencing discrimination corrodes the moral and constitutional foundation of justice. When punishment depends not on what was done, but on who the person is, justice transforms into privilege. The judiciary must therefore ensure that the sword of justice strikes with equality, not prejudice. The ultimate aim of sentencing must remain the same—to punish the crime, not the caste; to condemn the act, not the identity.
In the words of Justice Krishna Iyer,
Sentencing is the mirror of justice; if that mirror is clouded by bias, equality before law becomes a myth. The Indian judiciary, guided by constitutional morality and global best practices, must institutionalize fairness through structured sentencing and bias awareness. Only then can we say, in the spirit of Justice Krishna Iyer, that “the scales of justice must weigh conduct, not caste; guilt, not gender; crime, not class.”
