PUNISHMENT AND MANDATORY MINIMUMS IN THE INDIAN CONTEXT

Abstract

Crime and punishments are inseparable, a cause and effect; one devoid of the other is incongruous and noxious. Sentencing, as observed by Justice Krishna Iyer is a means to an end, a psycho-physical panacea to cure the accused of socially reprehensible behavior that caused the crime. Through such punishments, people are warned that they put their own rights on the line if they infringe on those of others through harmful conduct. Common among civilized societies, is a consolidation of crimes and concretization of their resultant punishments as some form of a codex. In India, the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter “the IPC”) serves this larger purpose, containing a curious amalgamation of rules on sentencing -- ranging from mandatory minimum to maximum punishments, or discretionary fines. 

As we approach the quarter-21st century, it makes sense to reflect on the goals and justifications of sentencing and punishment. With neoteric shifts in theories of punishment, like an increased emphasis on victimology and discontent with the doctrine of lex talionis, is there a need to update the sentencing groundwork of the IPC? This paper attempts to analyze the historical and current manifestation of punishment, noting the pressure such theories exert on the criminal justice system. Although there is a vast amount of literature on the American and Canadian systems of mandatory minimum sentencing, scholarship on Indian mandatory minimums are relatively sparse. In analyzing the law on minimum sentencing in other jurisdictions, this paper will also try to elucidate the rationale behind the IPC needing supplementary guidelines or overhauling of its mandatory minimums. It concludes by elucidating that the experience of other nations can be pedagogic in function, while acquiescing that redesign remains a mammoth task.