The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned the judiciary's approach towards showing leniency to murder convicts, particularly those facing the death penalty, observing that its forgiving attitude had sometimes resulted in serious consequences and that a line needed to be drawn.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu made the observations while hearing a dispute concerning the premature release of a multiple-murder convict whose death sentence had earlier been commuted to life imprisonment.
Justice Datta questioned whether the traditional approach of restricting capital punishment to the rarest of rare cases required reconsideration in the light of changing circumstances and the incidence of violent crime.
"Times have changed. In earlier days murder leading to death (sentence) was on the basis of rarest of rare cases, because murders were rare. Is it the same now? Now murder is not a rare (offence)," Justice Datta observed.
Court recalls earlier case
During the hearing, Justice Datta referred to an earlier case in which the Supreme Court had commuted the death sentence of a man convicted of raping and murdering his elder daughter. The convict was subsequently released on parole and murdered his wife in the presence of their younger daughter.
The man was again sentenced to death, but the Supreme Court later commuted that sentence to life imprisonment.
Referring to the sequence of events, Justice Datta expressed concern over the consequences of repeatedly extending leniency to offenders convicted of grave crimes.
"It is because of our forgiving nature that India is facing these problems. Forgive, forgive, forgive, you have to draw a line somewhere," the judge remarked.
He said the earlier case illustrated why courts needed to reconsider the limits of judicial forgiveness, particularly when dealing with offenders convicted of exceptionally serious crimes.
Dispute over premature release
The observations came during proceedings involving Sanjeev Kumar, who was convicted of multiple murders and sentenced to death in May 2004.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court commuted his sentence to life imprisonment in 2005. However, the Supreme Court reversed that decision in 2007 and restored the death penalty.
After his mercy petitions were rejected by the Governor and the President, Kumar again approached the Supreme Court. In January 2014, the court commuted his death sentence to life imprisonment because of prolonged executive delays in deciding his mercy petition.
After completing 20 years of actual imprisonment, Kumar sought premature release under Haryana's 2002 remission policy.
The Haryana government rejected his application in August 2024 and directed that he remain imprisoned for the rest of his life.
The authorities cited his prison conduct, including an attempt to escape by digging a tunnel in 2008 and his failure to return from furlough for nearly three years. They also noted that his death sentence had been commuted because of procedural delays rather than a reconsideration of the gravity of his offences.
High Court order challenged
Kumar challenged the rejection before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which set aside the government's decision in December 2025.
The High Court held that the authorities could not rely on misconduct falling outside the prescribed five-year period preceding the remission application.
It directed the state government to reconsider his request for premature release and granted him interim bail.
The High Court's ruling was subsequently challenged before the Supreme Court, bringing the question of remission and the relevance of a convict's past conduct under judicial scrutiny.
During Thursday's hearing, the bench examined the circumstances in which Kumar's death sentence had been commuted and the grounds cited by the Haryana government for refusing premature release.
The observations concerning judicial leniency were made during oral arguments and did not constitute a final ruling on the application of the rarest of rare doctrine.
After hearing the parties, the Supreme Court reserved its verdict in the matter.