Life imprisonment without remission is a penal sentence in which the convict remains incarcerated for their entire natural life, without the possibility of release. This form of punishment is problematic for several reasons. It raises significant human rights concerns, as it deprives individuals of any hope for release, which can be considered inhumane and degrading. The psychological impact on prisoners is severe, often leading to mental health issues such as depression and hopelessness. Additionally, it contradicts the principle of reformative justice, which aims to rehabilitate and reintegrate offenders into society. There are also concerns about judicial overreach, as courts imposing this sentence may be seen as creating a new category of punishment beyond the legislative framework. Furthermore, life imprisonment without remission disproportionately affects marginalised communities, exacerbating existing inequalities within the criminal justice system. These issues highlight the need for careful consideration and debate regarding the use of this severe form of punishment. This sentencing practice is becoming increasingly prevalent in Supreme Court decisions, serving as an alternative to the death penalty in cases where the crime is heinous, but mitigating factors suggest potential for reformation. The Supreme Court’s decisions in cases like Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka and Union of India v. V. Sriharan have established precedents for this type of sentencing.