SC: Compensation is not a substitute for punishment

Times Of India

Core Issue

The Supreme Court has held that monetary compensation to victims cannot replace or dilute criminal punishment. It criticised the trend of certain High Courts reducing sentences after offenders agree to pay compensation, stating that such practice undermines deterrence and erodes public confidence in justice.

I. Key Arguments in the Judgment

1. Punishment and Compensation Serve Different Purposes

The Court clearly distinguished between:

• Punishment – meant to deter, reform, and uphold societal order.
• Compensation – meant to rehabilitate victims and provide restorative relief.

Compensation cannot neutralise the criminal liability of an offender.

2. Deterrence Cannot Be Monetised

Allowing offenders to reduce jail time by paying compensation risks creating a perception that criminal accountability can be “purchased”. This weakens the deterrent function of criminal law.

3. Protection of Public Interest

Criminal law is not merely a dispute between two private parties. It represents an offence against society. Therefore, courts must ensure that sentencing reflects the gravity of the offence, not merely the willingness of the accused to compensate.

4. Victimology vs Sentencing Principles

While modern jurisprudence recognises victim rights and restitution (Section 357 CrPC), it does not permit courts to collapse sentencing into financial settlement.

II. Authorial Stance

The reporting tone supports the Supreme Court’s reasoning and presents it as corrective judicial discipline. The emphasis is on preserving the integrity of criminal jurisprudence and preventing “capricious” reductions in sentence.

The stance reinforces classical principles of criminal justice: proportionality, deterrence, and public morality.

III. Possible Biases or Gaps

1. Limited Discussion of Restorative Justice

The article does not deeply explore restorative justice frameworks, where victim-offender reconciliation can play a meaningful role in certain offences.

2. Context-Specific Nuance

There is limited distinction between:

• Serious crimes (where deterrence must dominate), and
• Compoundable or minor offences (where compensation may reasonably influence sentencing).

IV. Pros of the Supreme Court’s Position

• Strengthens rule of law.
• Prevents wealth-based inequality in sentencing.
• Protects societal interest beyond victim settlement.
• Reinforces deterrence and proportionality principles.
• Prevents misuse of judicial discretion.

V. Concerns and Counter-Considerations

• Victim-centric justice models sometimes require flexibility.
• Overcrowded prisons and delayed trials complicate rigid sentencing approaches.
• In certain offences (economic crimes, defamation, minor assaults), compensation may be central to resolution.

The challenge lies in balancing deterrence with restorative justice.

VI. Policy and Institutional Implications

1. Sentencing Guidelines Reform

India lacks comprehensive statutory sentencing guidelines. Judicial inconsistency often emerges due to this gap. The judgment may push for clearer frameworks.

2. Victim Compensation Schemes

State-run victim compensation funds must be strengthened so victims are not dependent on offender payments.

3. Judicial Discipline

High Courts must adhere to structured sentencing principles and avoid mechanical sentence reduction based on settlement.

VII. Real-World Impact

• Prevents perception that affluent offenders can “buy” freedom.
• Enhances public trust in criminal justice.
• Strengthens deterrence in serious crimes.
• May limit negotiated settlements in certain cases.

However, courts must remain sensitive to genuine reconciliation contexts in minor offences.

VIII. UPSC GS Paper Linkages

GS Paper II – Polity & Judiciary

• Judicial accountability and consistency
• Separation of powers and appellate oversight
• Rule of law

GS Paper II – Governance

• Victim rights and compensation schemes
• Criminal justice reforms

GS Paper IV – Ethics

• Justice vs mercy
• Equality before law
• Moral hazard in legal systems

Essay Themes

• “Can Justice Be Monetised?”
• “Deterrence vs Restorative Justice in Criminal Law”

IX. Balanced Conclusion and Future Perspective

The Supreme Court’s assertion that compensation cannot substitute punishment reaffirms foundational criminal law principles: proportionality, deterrence, and societal accountability.

Yet, modern justice systems increasingly integrate restorative elements. The future lies not in replacing punishment with compensation, but in designing a calibrated sentencing framework that balances victim rehabilitation, offender reform, and societal protection.

Judicial consistency, structured sentencing guidelines, and stronger victim compensation mechanisms will be crucial to ensure justice remains principled, equitable, and credible.