A petition raising a significant legal question regarding the interpretation of "life sentence" in Indian law has garnered attention as the Supreme Court on Friday has agreed to hear it. Chandrakant Jha, currently serving a life term for his involvement in three murder cases, has raised concerns about the duration and scope of his sentence.

The issue revolves around whether a life sentence entails imprisonment until natural death or if it can be subject to commutation or remission under Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The section deals with power to suspend or remit sentences.

A notice has been issued by a bench consisting of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra to the Delhi government, requesting its response to the plea. Jha is currently serving a life sentence after being convicted in three murder cases involving the discovery of headless torsos outside Tihar jail in 2006 and 2007.

Jha's plea, represented by advocate Rishi Malhotra, questions the interpretation of his sentence, which was initially imposed as death penalty by a trial court but later commuted to life imprisonment by the Delhi High Court. However, the High Court stipulated that the life imprisonment term would extend for the entirety of Jha's life.

The crux of the matter lies in the interpretation of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which delineates two punishments for murder: death penalty and life imprisonment. Jha argues that the absence of any specific mention of "natural life" under Section 302 implies that the legislature did not intend to impose imprisonment until death.

The petitioner contends that interpreting life imprisonment as incarceration until natural death could infringe upon the fundamental rights of convicted individuals. According to Jha, such an interpretation undermines the opportunity for reformation and violates established remission policies and rules.

The case brings to light the judicial exercise of power in sentencing, with Jha asserting that the High Court's decision lacks justification. The central question raised before the courts pertains to whether the term "life sentence" implies imprisonment until natural death or if it can be commuted or remitted through statutory powers vested under Section 432 of the CrPC.

The plea also argues that imposing imprisonment until natural life for murder is unconstitutional as it deprives individuals of the opportunity for reformation and violates the remission policy outlined by state governments. It emphasizes that remission is a statutory right under Section 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and sentencing is a judicial decision. 

The bench, upon issuing notice on the plea, combined it with another petition addressing similar concerns. In January 2016, the high court commuted Jha's death sentence to imprisonment for the "remainder of his natural life" without the possibility of remission, stating that he must be sufficiently punished for his egregious crime.

In 2013, Jha was sentenced to life imprisonment until death for his involvement in a murder case where the headless body of a person was discovered near Tihar Jail in 2007. Additionally, he was initially given the death penalty by the trial court in another murder case, as his actions were deemed to fall under the category of the "rarest of rare cases," indicating that his level of brutality demonstrated an irredeemable nature. This sentence was for the killing of a 19-year-old whose headless body was also found near Tihar Jail in 2007.