JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KAROL, J.

1. These four writ petitions present same or similar questions of law but they arise in different facts and circumstances.

1.1 Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 553 of 2023 has been filed by Ramasrey @ Fakkad challenging the sentence imposed on him by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in connection with Sections 364A, 302 and 201 Indian Penal Code, 1860¹[IPC], modifying the judgment of the learned Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area), Agra in Sessions Trial No. 647 of 2006 in which he was sentenced to death to imprisonment for the remainder of natural life. His Special Leave Petition to this Court was dismissed as withdrawn 03rd August 2015.²[SLP(Crl.) 2015 @ Crl.M.P. No.2705-06/2015] His bone of contention is that the IPC envisages only two punishments under Section 302 IPC i.e., death or imprisonment for life and it does not provide for imprisonment for remainder of natural life and as such the imposition of such a sentence is unconstitutional.

1.2 Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 42 of 2024 has been filed by one Chander Kant Jha, agitating similar grounds as Writ Petition (Crl.) 69 of 2025. He had been convicted under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and sentenced to death by the concerned Trial Court which sentence was modified by the High Court of Delhi, to remainder of natural life without remission. The State’s appeal thereagainst³[SLP(Crl.) No. 6351/2016] was dismissed vide order dated 11th February 2019.

1.3 Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 69 of 2025 has been preferred by one Atbir Singh, who had been convicted by the Additional Session Judge, Delhi and sentenced to death in connection with FIR No.24 of 1996 under Section 302/34 IPC. The High Court of Delhi confirmed the sentence. After the dismissal of the Criminal Appeal by this Court⁴[Criminal Appeal 870 of 2006 by judgment dated 9th August 2010] and subsequent review and curative petitions, his mercy petition under Article 72 of the Constitution of India⁵[Constitution] before Hon’ble the President of India was accepted in terms of order dated 15th November 2012. Accordingly, his sentence was modified to imprisonment for remainder of natural life without parole. His contention in this writ petition is similar to Ramasrey@Fakkad. He submits that the remainder of natural life clause has been specifically added by the Legislature via subsequent amendments limited only to sexual offences. He further submits that such a sentence defeats the statutory rights of an individual under Section 432 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973⁶[CrPC].

1.4 Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 198 of 2025 is at the instance of three convicts namely Sarabjit Singh, Gurdev Singh @ Baldev Singh, and Satnam Singh, all of whom have been convicted under Sections 302/307/148/149 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. among others, in connection with FIR No.226 of 1991 and sentenced to death under Section 302 read with 149 IPC which was confirmed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh and appeals thereagainst were dismissed by this Court⁷[Criminal Appeal 392 of 2002 and Criminal Appeal 394 of 2002 by judgment dated 1st August 2003]. Mercy petitions before Hon’ble the President were accepted in as much as their sentences were modified to imprisonment for remainder of natural life with no remission. Their challenge to the same is on similar grounds as raised by the other writ petitioners.

2. We have heard Mr. Rishi Malhotra, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S.V. Raju, Mr. Raja S. Thakare, learned Additional Solicitors General for the respondents. We have also heard Mr. R. Venkataramani, the learned Attorney General for India, whose assistance we requested vide order dated 16th October 2025.

3. The following questions arise for consideration before this Court:

(a) The constitutionality of the sentence as awarded to the writ petitioners;

(b) Whether judicial review of exercise of clemency powers by the Hon’ble President of India is permissible, it be under Article 32 or Articl