[This is a guest post by Saksham Agrawal.]
Life imprisonment has long been considered one of the harshest punishments in the Indian criminal justice system, second only to the death penalty. Scholars have long argued for its abolishment (see here, here, here, here and here). There is a compelling argument to be made that life imprisonment, particularly when imposed without the possibility of release, violates the fundamental right to human dignity protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The High Court of Kenya recently declared life imprisonment unconstitutional on the grounds that it violates the right to human dignity. Drawing from Justice Sifuna’s reasoning, I argue that life imprisonment, especially in its most severe forms, is unconstitutional as it infringes on human dignity in ways that cannot be justified in a society founded on respect for human rights.
First, I explore the concept of life imprisonment as a violation of human dignity under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, drawing on the expansive interpretation of this right by the Indian judiciary. Second, I analyse the Kenyan High Court’s ruling, which deemed life imprisonment unconstitutional, focusing on Justice Sifuna’s reasoning about the dehumanising effects of life sentences. Third, I analyse life imprisonment’s characteristics and increasing trends in India, focusing on its indefinite nature and implications for human dignity. Fourth, I discuss the various ways life imprisonment infringes on human dignity.
Then, I argue how Indian life imprisonment practices mirror Kenya’s issues, proposing abolishing life imprisonment based on Justice Sifuna’s reasoning. Lastly, I apply the proportionality test to assess the constitutional validity of life imprisonment, highlighting failures in the necessity and balancing prongs of the test.
Through this, I aim to show that in the Indian context, life imprisonment, particularly without the possibility of release, fails to meet constitutional standards of dignity and humane treatment.
The Right to Human Dignity Under Article 21
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states: “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” While on its face this may seem to simply protect against arbitrary detention or execution, the Supreme Court of India has interpreted Article 21 expansively over the years to encompass a range of fundamental rights, including the right to human dignity (Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi). This interpretation establishes human dignity as a core constitutional value protected under Article 21. Rulings such as Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, which held that any procedure that deprives a person of life or liberty must be “right, just and fair” and not “arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive.”, have further reinforced and expanded on this principle.
The Right to Dignity in Kenya
In making the case for the unconstitutionality of life imprisonment under Article 21, we can draw valuable insights from Justus Ndung’u Ndung’u v. Republic. Here, life imprisonment was held to be unconstitutional on the grounds that it violates the right to human dignity as enshrined in Article 28 of the Kenyan Constitution. Prior to this, the Kenyan Court of Appeals declared unconstitutional ‘mandatory life imprisonment without the possibility of mitigation’ as “inhumane treatment” under Article 28 as well. Such sentencing was deemed discriminatory and incompatible with the principle of equality before the law under Article 27 of Kenya’s Constitution and violative of the right to dignity.
In Justus, the court’s reasoning, which focuses on the dehumanizing aspects of life imprisonment in the context of dignity, provides a compelling framework that can be applied to the Indian context. Justice Sifuna emphasized that the indefinite nature of life imprisonment introduces a prolonged uncertainty that can exacerbate psychological suffering, akin to the mental anguish associated with death row. Life imprisonment deprives individuals of autonomy and hope, which are fundamental aspects of human dignity. By sentencing individuals to life without the possibility of release, the state effectively strips them of their humanity. This form of punishment treats convicts as perpetual threats, assuming they are beyond reform, and disregards their potential for growth and change. Instead of recognising their intrinsic worth, it reduces them to mere instruments of societal protection. In doing so, it devalues their inherent dignity and violates the respect that should be afforded to every individual.
The Nature of Life Imprisonment in India
To understand how life imprisonment may violate human dignity, we must first examine the nature of this punishment in India. Life imprisonment, unlike the death penalty, does not attract public debate, with its complexities and implications not garnering the same level of scrutiny or discussion as capital punishment. Under Section 53 of the Indian Penal Code, imprisonment for life means imprisonment for the “natural life” of the convict. Unlike fixed-term sentences, life imprisonment is indefinite, with no clear end point other than the death of the prisoner.
While there are provisions for remission and release of life convicts after 14 years of imprisonment, this is not guaranteed. In recent years, the trend has been towards more restrictive life sentences. In Maru Ram v Union of India, the Supreme Court held that life sentences are indeterminate, and without a specified duration, subtracting remission from an indeterminate sentence results in an unclear outcome. Union of India v. V. Sriharan further affirmed the constitutionality of sentences that restrict or remove the possibility of remission, including whole life sentences with no prospect of release.
According to the annual death penalty statistics compiled by Project 39A, from 2016 to 2023, courts imposed 134 sentences restricting remission powers or mandating imprisonment for the full natural life of convicts. This includes 51 whole life sentences with no possibility of remission. The use of such restrictive life sentences appears to be increasing. This shift means that for many prisoners, a life sentence truly means imprisonment until death with no prospect of release. It is this most severe form of life imprisonment that raises the gravest concerns about the violation of human dignity.
How Life Imprisonment Violates Human Dignity
There are several key ways in which life imprisonment, particularly when imposed without the possibility of release, infringes on human dignity. First, a core aspect of human dignity is the recognition that all individuals have the capacity or ability to change. Life sentences that offer no prospect of release deny this fundamental human potential. As the European Court of Human Rights stated in Vinter and Others v. United Kingdom, such sentences violate human dignity by depriving the convict of any hope for release, even if they demonstrate reform and no longer pose a threat to society.
The “right to hope” recognized in Vinter is intimately connected to human dignity. To say that a person can never be rehabilitated, or never atone for their crime, is to deny their basic humanity. It reduces them permanently to their worst act, ignoring their capacity for change. As Lord Justice Laws of the English Court of Appeals noted, whole life sentences are comparable to the death penalty in that they assume a prisoner can never redeem themselves, no matter how they use their time in prison.
Vinter was influenced by the German Federal Constitutional Court’s Lifelong Imprisonment Case, which held that denying the possibility of release for life sentences violates Article 1 of the Basic Law with regard to human dignity. The Court emphasized that every person must have the opportunity for rehabilitation and the potential to regain freedom.
Second, studies have documented the profound psychological impact of life sentences, particularly those without the possibility of release (see here, here and here). Life prisoners report feelings of hopelessness, depression, anxiety, and loss of meaning. The uncertainty and lack of a defined endpoint can be mentally torturous. Many whole-life prisoners express that they would prefer execution to indefinite imprisonment (see here, here and here).
This psychological suffering strikes at the core of human dignity. To subject a person to such mental anguish for the remainder of their natural life is to treat them as less than human. It ignores their emotional and psychological needs, reducing them to mere physical beings to be warehoused.
Third, human dignity requires respect for individual autonomy and the ability to make meaningful choices about one’s life. Life imprisonment, especially without the prospect of release, completely removes this autonomy. The prisoner loses all ability to determine the course of their life or make decisions about their future. Every aspect of their existence is controlled by the prison system until death. This total loss of self-determination is an affront to human dignity. It treats the prisoner as an object to be controlled rather than a human subject with agency and free will.
Fourthly, life imprisonment often results in what scholars term “social death” – the severing of family and community ties, loss of social roles, and isolation from society. Prisoners are unable to maintain relationships, raise children, or participate meaningfully in social life. This social isolation and loss of identity is deeply dehumanizing.
Lastly, the principle of proportionality in sentencing is closely tied to human dignity. Punishments that are grossly disproportionate to the crime fail to respect the dignity of the offender. Life imprisonment, especially when mandatorily imposed or applied to non-violent crimes, often violates this principle. Treating all life-sentenced prisoners as equally incorrigible and dangerous, regardless of their individual circumstances or potential for reform, fails to respect their individual dignity and worth.
Protecting the Right to Dignity in India
Now, I demonstrate how life imprisonment in India, especially when imposed without the possibility of release, similarly violates the right to dignity protected under Article 21.
Justice Sifuna’s reasoning aligns closely with the Indian Supreme Court’s expansive interpretation of Article 21, which has consistently held that the right to life encompasses the right to live with dignity. Just as the Kenyan court found that life imprisonment violates Article 28 of their constitution, we can argue that it similarly infringes on the dignity protections inherent in Article 21.
Several key aspects of Justice Sifuna’s reasoning are particularly relevant to the Indian context. First, the Kenyan court emphasized how the lack of a defined endpoint in life sentences creates a state of perpetual uncertainty that erodes human dignity. This argument resonates strongly with the Indian Supreme Court’s interpretations of Article 21, which have stressed the importance of procedural fairness and the avoidance of arbitrary or oppressive measures (see Maneka Gandhi). Secondly, Justice Sifuna’s judgment highlighted how life imprisonment, especially without the possibility of release, denies prisoners any hope for rehabilitation or reintegration into society. This denial of hope strikes at the core of human dignity by refusing to recognize the potential for personal growth and change. Such reasoning aligns with the Indian judicial philosophy that has emphasized reformation and rehabilitation as key objectives of the penal system.
Thirdly, the Kenyan court also recognized that life imprisonment effectively results in a form of social death, permanently excluding individuals from society. This concept of social death and its impact on human dignity can be directly applied to the Indian context, where the right to life under Article 21 has been interpreted to include the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it, including social interactions and personal development (see Francis Coralie Mullin). Furthermore, Justice Sifuna’s judgment touched on the issue of proportionality, suggesting that life imprisonment may be disproportionate to the crime in many cases. This argument fits well within the Indian constitutional framework, where from the very dawn of India’s constitutional republic, the principle of proportionality has been recognized as an essential aspect of fundamental rights jurisprudence.
Notably, the Kenyan court drew parallels between life imprisonment and the death penalty, noting that both impose a form of finality that can be seen as contrary to human dignity. This comparison is particularly relevant in the Indian context, where the Supreme Court has grappled with the constitutionality of the death penalty and has increasingly restricted its application.
Moreover, the focus on the rehabilitative aspect of punishment aligns well with the Indian judiciary’s emphasis on reformation as a key objective of the penal system. The denial of any possibility of rehabilitation that comes with whole-life sentences can be argued to be fundamentally at odds with this principle and, by extension, with the dignity protections enshrined in Article 21.
Proportionality Test
To determine whether life imprisonment is constitutional under Article 21, we can apply the proportionality test developed in Indian constitutional jurisprudence. This four-prong test examines whether a law or policy that infringes on fundamental rights is justified. Elsewhere, I have undertaken a detailed analysis of the proportionality test in life imprisonment. Here, I limit myself to providing a brief analysis based on that detailed examination:
1. Legitimate Aim: Life imprisonment aims to protect society by permanently isolating dangerous offenders deemed beyond rehabilitation, deterring future crimes, and delivering justice through severe punishment for serious offences. Here, it does serve legitimate aims of public safety, deterrence, and retribution. This prong is likely satisfied.
2. Suitability (Rational Nexus): In assessing the suitability of life imprisonment, we delve into whether this form of punishment effectively achieves the aims of public safety, deterrence, and retribution.
Life imprisonment permanently removes dangerous offenders, preventing reoffending and enhancing public safety. Its severity deters potential criminals, as the prospect of lifelong incarceration discourages serious criminal behaviour. Thus, there is a rational connection between life imprisonment and these aims, so this prong is also met.
3. Necessity (Least Restrictive Means): This is where life imprisonment, especially in its most severe forms, begins to fail the test. There are less restrictive means available to achieve the same objectives, such as long-term but finite sentences coupled with parole provisions to ensure public safety while respecting the convict’s potential for rehabilitation.
4. Balancing: This final prong requires weighing the importance of the state’s objectives in giving life imprisonment against the extent of rights infringement of the individual, particularly their right to dignity.
Life imprisonment imposes indefinite deprivation of liberty, leaving the convict in a perpetual state of uncertainty with no defined endpoint. On the question of human dignity, it eliminates any chance for individuals to make future choices, completely disregards their potential for reform, and violates international jurisprudence as well as fundamental human rights standards. On the other hand, it meets socially desirable goals by ensuring there is no chance of reoffending along with satisfying penological goals of retribution and deterrence,
However, given the severe and permanent deprivation of dignity involved in life sentences, especially those without release, the infringement on rights outweighs the marginal benefits to public safety or deterrence compared to less extreme sentences.
Thus, under a rigorous proportionality analysis, life imprisonment in its current form in India fails constitutional scrutiny. The violation of human dignity is not justified by or proportional to the state’s penological objectives.
Conclusion
Life imprisonment, particularly when imposed without the possibility of release, constitutes a grave violation of human dignity protected under Article 21. By denying hope, autonomy, and the possibility of redemption, it fails to respect the inherent worth and potential of human beings. The severe psychological harm and social death it inflicts cannot be justified in a society founded on respect for human rights.
As held in Francis Coralie Mullin, the right to life with dignity encompasses more than mere animal existence. Yet life imprisonment, especially in its most extreme forms, reduces prisoners to exactly that – mere biological existence without hope or meaningful life. This is incompatible with the vision of human dignity enshrined in the Constitution.
The Kenyan High Court’s decision in Justus Ndung’u provides a compelling precedent for reconsidering the constitutionality of life imprisonment in India. By recognizing the fundamental incompatibility between indefinite imprisonment and human dignity, Kenya has paved the way for similar arguments to be made under Article 21.
India needs to follow the lead of Kenya and other nations in abolishing life sentences without the possibility of release and reforming its sentencing practices to better respect human dignity. At minimum, all life sentences should be subject to periodic review with the possibility of release. A system of indeterminate sentencing focused on rehabilitation rather than pure punishment would better align with constitutional values and international human rights norms.
Ultimately, a society’s commitment to human dignity is measured by how it treats even its worst offenders. By embracing a more humane approach to sentencing that recognizes the dignity and potential of all human beings, India can better uphold the noble principles embodied in its Constitution. Life imprisonment as currently practiced fails this test and should be deemed unconstitutional under Article 21.
#Lessons #Kenya #Life #Imprisonment #Violation #Human #Dignity #Article #Constitutional #Law #Philosophy