The Supreme Court of India ruled that High Courts cannot suo motu enhance a convict’s sentence during appeal, reinforcing fundamental rights and the principles of natural justice. Learn why this landmark decision matters for the Indian justice system.

Supreme Court Bans Suo Motu Sentence Enhancement by High Courts

In a powerful ruling that strengthens the rights of the accused, the Supreme Court of India has declared that High Courts cannot suo motu (on their own) enhance the sentence of a convict while deciding an appeal. This judgment, passed in the first week of June 2025, emphasizes that justice should not penalize individuals for seeking an appeal.

Appeal Is a Right, Not a Gamble

The ruling stems from a case where a convict appealed a verdict by a trial court, seeking either acquittal or a lighter sentence. Surprisingly, the High Court not only upheld the conviction but also increased the sentence — without any request or separate appeal from the prosecution.

The apex court firmly opposed this, stating that it undermines the essence of an appeal. As the Court poignantly put it: “An appeal should not become a punishment for seeking justice.”

Violation of Natural Justice and Constitutional Rights

The Court found such judicial conduct alarming and unconstitutional. It violates the principles of natural justice and breaches Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.

When a convict is punished more severely just for appealing, it discourages the use of a legal remedy designed to promote justice. This creates a dangerous chilling effect on the right to fair appellate proceedings.

Due Process Must Be Followed

The Supreme Court made it clear: if a sentence enhancement is to be considered, the prosecution must file a proper appeal or revision petition. The accused must be given prior notice and a fair chance to respond before any harsher sentence is imposed.

This ensures procedural fairness — a cornerstone of any just legal system.

Constitutional Safeguards for Accused Individuals

This ruling aligns with the broader body of constitutional jurisprudence that protects the rights of accused persons. The Court stressed that appellate jurisdiction has clear boundaries, and exceeding them amounts to judicial overreach.

Such actions risk eroding public trust in the judiciary and discouraging even genuine appeals.

Why This Verdict Matters

This landmark verdict reminds High Courts across India to respect their appellate limitations and uphold the rule of law. Appeals should remain a beacon of hope and justice — not a risk of facing harsher punishment.

By reinforcing the principle that appeals are a legal right and not a legal gamble, the Supreme Court has taken a vital step toward restoring public confidence in the Indian criminal justice system.