Explained: What Are Mandatory Minimum Sentencing?

A Supreme Court panel chaired by CJI Chandrachud decided to consider a petition that questioned the constitutionality of Section 376 DB of the Indian Penal Code. The punishment for gangraping a child under the age of 12 is described in this section, which even specifies a "minimum mandatory sentence" of life in prison until the offender dies.

What is mandatory minimum sentencing?

The phrase "sentence that must be imposed without leaving any discretion to the court" is used to describe mandatory minimum sentencing. In its 2016 decision in Mohd Hashim v. State Of UP And Others, the Apex court stated that it meant a punishment amount that could not be reduced below the time frame set.

BCCL

To ensure justice and prevent the offender from going unpunished, this essentially predetermines the minimum punishment or sentence for some offences that are considered to be more serious than others.

The court must impose this minimum sentence period for the offences that call for it, regardless of the particular, individual circumstances of the offender or the offence.

What legal provisions mandate this?

The Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act in India prescribes such sentences for all sexual offences, with the exception of sexual harassment, and is largely influenced by the Canadian and American legal systems.

For offences under Section 7 of the POCSO Act, which deals with offences of sexual assault against children, a punishment of three to five years has been established under Section 8. It is necessary to impose the least severe punishment possible in these situations.

¡°..When the legislature has prescribed a minimum sentence without discretion, the same cannot be reduced by the courts. In such cases, imposition of minimum sentence, be it imprisonment or fine, is mandatory and leaves no discretion to the court,¡± in its 2019 decision in "State Of Madhya Pradesh vs. Vikram Das," the Supreme Court reiterated. Similarly, the court ruled in State of J&K v. Vinay Nanda that even if it were to take into account mitigating circumstances, it would still be necessary to impose the statutory minimum sentence.

Unsplash/Representational image

The Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1983, however, was not passed until the year 1983, in response to widespread protests against the Supreme Court's 1978 decision in Tukaram and Ors v. State of Maharashtra, which exonerated two policemen for the rape of a 16-year-old Adivasi girl. The first time a "mandatory minimum punishment" was established was in the 1983 amendment, which set the minimum sentence for general rapes at seven years and the maximum sentence for both, which was life in prison, at ten years in aggravated cases, which included rapes of pregnant women and children under the age of 12.

After a brutal gangrape and the death of a medical student in Delhi a few years later, in 2012, the call for tougher rape laws and harsher penalties gained traction. This led to the 2013 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, which broadened the definition of "rape" to include object insertion, anal sex, and oral sex in addition to penetration.

What are the defences for and against it?

The argument for minimum mandatory sentencing is that it strengthens the cause of justice by limiting the scope for judicial discretion and arbitrariness. By ensuring that the offender receives justice, it is also thought to serve as a deterrent for serious or severe crimes. However, detractors claim that this overcrowded prison is unfair because it frequently ignores the convict's mitigating circumstances, such as whether they are a first-time offender or the family's sole provider.

Unsplash/Representational image

Furthermore, these clauses frequently have unintended consequences because judges may find the punishment to be too harsh in such circumstances and completely exonerate the accused.

In a 2021 decision in the case of Satish S/O Bandu Ragde vs. State of Maharashtra, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court acquitted a man who had been charged with sexually assaulting a 12-year-old girl in violation of the POCSO. Instead, because the accusations lacked sufficient "seriousness," the court found him guilty under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (Outraging the Modesty of a Woman), which carries a one-year mandatory minimum sentence.

Despite an increase in reported cases, the National Crime Records Bureau of the Ministry of Home Affairs' official statistics from 2016 show that there hasn't been a material rise in convictions. The fact that judges still exercise a great deal of discretion in these situations and the severity of the punishment could tip the scale in favour of a lesser sentence or even the acquittal of those found guilty is one potential contributing factor.