Imagine if someone broke a serious rule in school — like badly hurting another student — and instead of being punished, they were allowed to just pay some money and walk away. Would that feel fair? Probably not.

That is what the Supreme Court of India recently warned other courts about.

The Supreme Court said that in serious crimes, judges must not reduce punishment just because the accused person offers to pay money to the victim. The court was looking at a case where the Madras High Court had let off a man accused of trying to commit murder because he agreed to financially compensate the victim. The Supreme Court strongly disagreed.

For many years, the Supreme Court has cautioned judges against showing “undue sympathy” by giving very light sentences in serious cases. If punishment is too soft, it weakens the law. People may stop fearing the consequences of committing crimes. And if people lose trust in courts, the whole justice system suffers.

The court made it clear that serious crimes — especially crimes against women — must be punished properly. Money cannot replace justice. In the past, some courts have even suggested that victims of sexual assault should marry the accused or accept money to “settle” the matter. The Supreme Court has repeatedly overturned such decisions, saying they go against the idea of justice.

This does not mean compensation is wrong. Giving money to victims can help them rebuild their lives. But compensation is not a substitute for punishment. Criminal law is not a private deal between two people. It is about protecting society as a whole.

When courts reduce punishment in serious crimes, they send a dangerous message — that justice can be negotiated. The Supreme Court’s reminder is simple: punishment must match the crime, and justice cannot be bought.

END OF ARTICLE