In Ramasrey @ Fakkad v. State of Uttar Pradesh and connected cases, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of sentences requiring imprisonment for the remainder of natural life without remission. The petitioners argued that such a sentence created a new form of punishment not recognized under the IPC. Rejecting this contention, the Court relied on the Constitution Bench judgment in Union of India v. V. Sriharan, clarifying that life imprisonment ordinarily means imprisonment for the convict’s entire natural life. The commonly mentioned 14-year period is only the minimum period relevant for considering remission, not the duration of the sentence. The Court also reaffirmed the special-category life sentence recognized in Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State of Karnataka, allowing courts to impose life imprisonment without remission in exceptionally heinous cases where death penalty is unwarranted but ordinary remission would be inadequate. The Court further held that judicial review of the President’s mercy decision under Article 72 is limited. Finding no constitutional infirmity, the Supreme Court dismissed the petitions.