Author: Mikah Maria Gill, School of Law CHRIST (Deemed to be University)

 As a Law student I have come across very few pieces of writing that play into fiction when it comes to the topic of legality, The case of the Speluncean Explorers is one such fictitious work by Professor Fuller who was a legal maestro and professor in Harvard Law school. This piece of literature is believed to have been created for the sole purpose of teaching students legality and its correlation to morality. To test whether this write up works in conveying the aspects of law that many law students such as myself may find daunting, I am taking up the challenge to implement this methodology to understand a case in the Indian context. For this test I have chosen the case of Phul Singh v. State of Haryana (AIR 1980 SC 249), the Supreme Court of India grappled with a tough dilemma: how would the law react to a gruesome offense committed by a juvenile offender? Phul Singh, who was a young man in his early twenties, had been convicted of raping his neighbour, a bride newly married. The Court upheld his conviction but commuted his sentence to four years' harsh imprisonment in consideration of youth and absence of previous criminal record.

Reimagining this case using Lon L. Fuller's The Case of the Speluncean Explorers, we introduce five imaginary judicial opinions, each espousing a different jurisprudential philosophy: legal positivism, natural law, feminism, rehabilitative justice, and utilitarianism

Phul Singh, a youth of about 20 years of age, raped his neighboring woman, who was newly married, in a rural area. The trial court held him guilty under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to 10 rigorous imprisonment years. In appeal, the High Court, and subsequently the Supreme Court, upheld the conviction, although the sentence was cut short to 4 years on humanitarian grounds, as the convict was young and had no previous criminal record.

 The law is what it is, not what we think it ought to be.

The statute is precise. Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code mandates at least seven years' imprisonment for rape unless special reasons are there to reduce the sentence. The trial court found the accused guilty based on robust evidence. My only point of concern is the reduction of sentences. Youth or clean records do not provide reason for deviating from the statute.

The function of the judiciary is not to reform society but to enforce the law as it has been enacted. Sympathy is a virtue of individuals, not courts. The decrease in                             sentencing threatens to undermine the certainty and authority of the law

View of Justice Aruna (Natural Law Theorist)

"Justice has to be guided by moral truth, not merely by legal text."

 I agree with the conviction but disagree with sentencing. The law should be guided by empathy and context. Phul Singh, although guilty, was a young man brought up in a conservative rural environment with no exposure to gender rights or education about consent.

The goal of justice is not simply retribution, but restoration. Justice must be done for the woman—but also for the community, which needs to learn about accountability and the potential for reform. His punishment should entail counseling and reintegration programs. Punishment should be just, not punitive.

Justice Narayanan's view (Rehabilitative Justice)

"Prison should be a place of correction, not condemnation."

Justice has to reconcile punishment with the prospect of reform. Phul Singh did a terrible thing, but his youth and clean record beforehand indicate he is not beyond hope.

Whereas previously we only focused on sentencing to prison, we need to take advantage of this moment to teach and change. Sentences must consist of therapy, community service, and gender sensitivity training. He needs to come out of prison as a changed man, not a hardened criminal. Our justice system cannot punish—but change.

Opinion of Justice Leela (Feminist Jurist)

“Justice delayed or diluted for women is justice denied.”

The decision to reduce the sentence is deeply troubling. Rape is not only a violation of the body but of dignity and autonomy. The woman’s trauma will last a lifetime—so why should her rapist serve only four years?

By excusing the accused on the grounds of age or rural ignorance, we perpetuate patriarchal tolerance for violence. Such leniency sends a message that women’s pain is negotiable. It erodes deterrence and devalues the struggle of countless survivors. The full force of the law must be applied.

I dissent from any reduction in sentencing.

"Justice must serve the greatest good for the greatest number."

Judgment should be assessed in terms of its effect on society. A light sentence for rape can encourage possible perpetrators and deter victims from reporting offenses.

The deterrent effect of law cannot be undermined. The reduction in punishment in such offences dilutes the message that sexual violence is unacceptable. Although the offender happens to be young, the deeper damage is in undermining public confidence in the justice system. Hence, I am against the reduction in sentence and in favor of the maximum punishment allowed.

In Phul Singh v. State of Haryana, there was unanimous conviction, but judges differed widely on sentencing. While some inclined more towards reform and rehabilitation, others insisted on deterrence and firm enforcement of law. The majority finally reduced the sentence to four years, weighing individual cases against judicial discretion.

This revised verdict reveals the tensions that continue to exist in criminal jurisprudence: law and morality, justice and mercy, and punishment and reform. By these various prism lenses, we are able to observe how even identical facts can give rise to competing visions of justice.