Life sentences: consecutive vs concurrent debate

The debate over whether multiple life sentences should be served consecutively or concurrently continues to pose a challenge for India's criminal justice system. At the heart of this issue lies a fundamental question: Can justice truly be served if multiple heinous offences are punished with a single term of life imprisonment, effectively running all sentences together?

This debate is more than just a procedural question. It is a reflection of how the legal system values each offence, each victim, and each instance of wrongdoing. It also raises concerns over proportionality, judicial discretion, and the symbolic nature of sentencing..

In India, life imprisonment means incarceration for the rest of the convict’s natural life, unless it is reduced through remission, commutation, or pardon.

However, in practice, life convicts are often released after 14 to 20 years due to government policies or good conduct in prison.

When a convict is sentenced to life imprisonment for multiple offences, courts must decide whether those sentences will run concurrently (at the same time) or consecutively (one after another). This decision can have a significant impact on how long the convict actually remains behind bars.

In the landmark case of Muthuramalingam v. State (2016), the Supreme Court held that multiple life sentences should run concurrently, since a person cannot serve more than one “life” in practical terms. However, the Court also recognized the need for meaningful punishment and allowed trial courts to specify a minimum number of years that must be served without remission—often referred to as a “non-remittable” life sentence.

The logic of concurrent life sentences may make sense legally, but it raises serious concerns about justice for each individual crime. In cases involving multiple murders, serial sexual assaults, or terrorist attacks, each act is an independent violation of law, morality, and human dignity. Treating all offences as one, through concurrent sentencing, risks diminishing the value of each victim’s life.

On the other hand, consecutive life sentences, though symbolically powerful, often raise questions of practicality. Since a person cannot literally live through two life terms, such sentencing can be seen as theoretical or even performative.

The way forward may lie in fixing minimum terms of imprisonment in serious cases— something courts have increasingly adopted. Sentences like "life imprisonment with a minimum of 25 or 30 years without remission" strike a balance between symbolic justice and real enforceability.

This approach ensures that multiple crimes are not treated lightly, while also avoiding the legal fiction of serving more than one life. It reflects a nuanced understanding of proportionality, taking into account the severity of each offence while still being grounded in reality.

A major concern with the current legal framework is the lack of consistency. Courts often differ in how they interpret and apply sentencing principles, leading to unpredictable results in similar cases. There is an urgent need for comprehensive sentencing guidelines, particularly for life imprisonment in cases involving multiple offences

The Law Commission of India has repeatedly recommended the development of a structured sentencing policy to ensure uniformity and transparency. Such a framework would empower judges to impose punishments that are fair, proportionate, and reflective of both public interest and constitutional values.

Ultimately, the debate between concurrent and consecutive life sentences is not just about how long a person stays in jail—it is about how seriously the law treats each act of violence or wrongdoing. While life imprisonment remains one of the gravest punishments in the Indian penal system, the way it is applied in multi-offence cases must reflect the dignity of every victim and the duty of the State to uphold justice.

Clarity, consistency, and compassion must guide this debate—not just to serve punishment, but to ensure that justice is neither reduced to symbolism nor lost in procedural convenience.