Voices. Verdicts. Vision

Voices. Verdicts. Vision

Supreme Court Upholds Life Term Till End of Natural Life Under IPC Section 376DA; Allows Right to Seek Remission

(Mahendra Vishwanath Kawchale VS Union Of India, order dated September 2, 2025)

IPC Section 376DA

The Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices B. V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan disposed of a PIL which challenged the constitutional validity of Section 376DA of IPC as being violative of fundamental rights of equality and right to life under Articles 14 and 21.

The petition argued that prescribing only one punishment i.e. life imprisonment till the remainder of natural life violated constitutional guarantees. The counsel extracted the words “shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person’s natural life” from Section 376DA and contended that giving no discretion to the Sessions Court to impose a lesser sentence was arbitrary and against principles of justice. They also argued for remission as a statutory right. The respondents countered that the punishment was proportionate to the heinous crime of gang rape of a minor and that no grievance could be entertained regarding sentencing.

The Court held that a person convicted under Section 376DA can still appeal before higher courts and seek remission under Articles 72 or 161 of the Constitution, as well as under statutory provisions. However, it declined to rule on the validity of prescribing a single mandatory punishment since this PIL lacked a factual case. The Court reaffirmed that life imprisonment till the end of natural life remains subject to constitutional and statutory rights of remission. It did not strike down Section 376DA, deeming the sentencing fit for the offence, but left the constitutional question open for a future case and dismissed the PIL accordingly.


Appearances:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajendra M Daga, Adv. Mr. Manan Daga, Adv. Mr. C. George Thomas, AOR Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, AOR Mr. Vishwajeet Bhati, Adv. Ms. Manasa Ramakrishna, Adv. Mr. Vivek Rajan D.b, Adv. Mr. Hemant Gupta, Adv. Mr. Shreya Rastogi, Adv. Mr. Vishwajeet Bhati, Adv. Mr. Manasa Ramakrishna, Adv. Mr. Karan Dalla, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. R. Venkataramani, Attorney General for India Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Mr. Padmesh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Pratyush Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Arkaj Kumar, Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Mayank Pandey, Adv. Mr. Neelakshi Bhadauria, Adv. Mr. Kartikay Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Ameyavikrama Thanvi, Adv. Mr. Chitvan Singal, Adv. Mr. Abhishak Kr. Pandey, Adv. Dr. N. Visakamurthy, AOR Mr. K M Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Adv. Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, Adv. Mr. Merusagar Samantray, Adv. Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Mr. Chitvan Singhal, Adv. Mr. Kartikey Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Ameyavikrama Thanvi, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Shrirang B. Verma, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv. Ms. Chitransha Singh Sikarwar, Adv.

PDF Icon

Mahendra Vishwanath Kawchale VS Union Of India,

Preview PDF

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *