5 min readNew DelhiUpdated: May 12, 2026 05:04 PM IST
Supreme Court news: The Supreme Court has issued notice to the Odisha government questioning whether its direction to two convicts to undergo 35 years of rigorous imprisonment without remission after commuting their death sentence in a rape and murder case amounted to an excessively harsh punishment.
A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a special leave petition (SLP) filed by the convicts challenging a June 23, 2017 judgment of the Orissa High Court in a criminal appeal arising from their conviction for murder, rape and destruction of evidence.
Justices J B Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan pronounced the order on May 6.
“Prima facie, we are of the view that 35 years of rigorous imprisonment without remission is quite harsh,” the Supreme Court bench said while issuing notice to the state of Odisha and seeking its response on the sentencing aspect of the high court judgment.
Convicts were initially sentenced to death
According to the order passed on May 6, 2026, the petitioners had been put to trial for offences punishable under Section 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 376(2)(g) (gang rape), and Section 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), all read with Section 34 (common intention).
The trial court found both the accused guilty and awarded them the death penalty, considering the gravity of the offences.
The convicts subsequently appealed before the Orissa High Court. While the high court commuted the death sentence, it directed that the two men undergo 35 years of rigorous imprisonment without remission, meaning they would not be entitled to any statutory reduction of sentence during that period.
Such sentences, often referred to as “special category” punishments, have increasingly emerged in cases where constitutional courts seek an alternative to capital punishment while still ensuring prolonged incarceration.
Story continues below this ad
SC · Justices J B Pardiwala & Ujjal Bhuyan · Odisha rape-murder convicts · 35 years without remission · May 6, 2026
What does “prima facie” mean?
Latin: “At first sight” or “on the face of it”
A prima facie observation is the court’s preliminary view formed without full argument or evidence. It means the bench sees a reason for concern worth examining — but has not decided the matter. It is not a final ruling, and it does not bind the outcome.
“Prima facie, we are of the view that 35 years of rigorous imprisonment without remission is quite harsh.”
— Supreme Court of India, May 6, 2026
What the observation does — and doesn’t — mean
What it does NOT mean
Not a final verdict
- Sentence has NOT been stayed or reduced
- Convicts remain under the HC’s 35-year order
- SC has not ruled the sentence illegal
- State government yet to be heard
- No binding legal consequence yet
What it DOES signal
A proportionality concern flagged
- SC sees a prima facie case worth examining
- Proportionality of sentence is in question
- State must justify the 35-year no-remission term
- Outcome could limit HC sentencing discretion
- Wider implications for non-remittable sentences
What happens next
Now
SC issues notice to Odisha govt; sentence not stayed; convicts remain under 35-year order
4 weeks
Odisha government to file response justifying the sentencing direction of the HC
Next hearing
SC examines state’s response; may reduce sentence, uphold it, or refer to larger bench
Wider stakes: SC’s eventual ruling may set limits on how far High Courts can go while imposing lengthy incarceration without remission after commuting capital punishment — a question with implications beyond this case.
Supreme Court flags proportionality concerns
- The Supreme Court’s observations suggest that the bench may examine whether the punishment imposed by the high court struck a legally sustainable balance between the severity of the crime and the principles governing sentencing jurisprudence.
- The bench specifically recorded that it wanted to hear the state government on “this part of the High Court’s order”, referring to the direction denying remission for 35 years.
- The issue of remission has remained a sensitive and evolving area in criminal law.
- In a series of earlier judgments, the Supreme Court has upheld the power of constitutional courts to impose fixed-term sentences without remission in exceptional circumstances, especially in cases where the court decides against confirming the death penalty.
- However, courts have also repeatedly held that sentencing must remain proportionate and should not become arbitrary or excessively punitive.
- Legal observers say the present case could provide another opportunity for the apex court to revisit the limits of judicial discretion in crafting such sentences.
Notice issued to Odisha govt
- After condoning the delay in filing the special leave petition, the Supreme Court bench issued notice to the state of Odisha, returnable in four weeks.
- The court also permitted “dasti service” in addition to the ordinary mode of service, allowing the petitioners to directly serve a copy of the proceedings upon the respondent state.
- Liberty was further granted to the petitioners to serve notice through the standing counsel representing the state government before the Supreme Court.
- The petitioners were represented during the hearing by advocate Manika Tripathy.
Wider implications for sentencing policy
Though the Supreme Court has not stayed the sentence at this stage, its prima facie remark describing the punishment as “quite harsh” is likely to draw attention within legal circles because fixed non-remittable prison terms have increasingly been used as an intermediate sentencing model between life imprisonment and the death penalty.
The top court’s eventual ruling may have implications beyond the present case, particularly on how far high courts can go while imposing lengthy incarceration without remission after commuting capital punishment.
The matter is expected to be taken up again after four weeks once the state government files its response.
© IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd
