There's case law regarding how supreme court and high courts can sentence someone to a form of life imprisonment which is barred from being remitted by the central and state government. However there is no provision under CrPc which allows the SC or HC to do this , they have applied their "inherent" powers to "bring justice" (at least from what I have read) for this. Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State of Karnataka is the relevant case law regarding this. In the same way can supreme courts or high courts create a sentence of imprisonment which exceeds the maximum sentence for an offence if they're worthy of such a sentence ? And likewise can they strike down mandatory minimum sentences for various offences ? In the case of the latter , the relevant case law is Mitthu v state of state of Punjab where the supreme court struck down mandatory death penalty. Could the supreme courts and high courts likewise strike down mandatory minimum prison sentences as well ? The latest case regarding if the higher judiciary can do this or not that I found was this

https://www.google.com/amp/s/indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-law/mandatory-minimum-sentences-rationale-behind-them-8404166/lite/

But I couldn't find the original petition anywhere regarding this.

Students of political thought know well that when it comes to power, the only check on it is more power. All else is either intellectual speculation or distraction. SCI and HCs can do anything until the legislature and the executive decide to push back. Or people come out on the streets, like in Sabarimala. Law is a wonderful subject. But it cannot answer a question that precedes its own very existence. The rules and logic of law are consequences of historical struggles to realign power. The current balance of power between the branches of the government allows courts latitude in some domains. The same court that can do what it wants to achieve justice that it alone can define cannot, at the same time, give you bail against the tyranny of state power. When the balance of power changes again, as it will eventually, new possibilities and newer limitations will emerge.

It is a sensible suggestion but it does not fit in with how public administrators understand the function of law in the polity. Even in the US, with a far longer tradition of the rule of law, one can see how raw power can subvert and degrade any principle that seeks to establish neutrality in decision-making. In India, does the majority actually support the rule of law? Do they actually accept the premise that individual civil rights are sacrosanct and cannot be made subservient to communal identity? These are political questions and it is in answering them that we establish the contours of how we relate with the practice of the rule of law in Indian context. It is that context which then determines recruitment and training policies. The problem of Indian polity is not that it is insufficiently committed to the rule of law but that it is already committed to another understanding of the purpose of law. In that understanding, civil liberties are desirable but not essential. What is essential is public order, prevention of riots, and balance of power between communal identities. Until this understanding persists, any attempt to reform will either under-perform on its aims or end up being subverted. Just take the entire discourse on Lokpal (and in a similar vein, on collegium) and how badly we struggled to create an accountability institution because we could not figure out who possesses the necessary integrity to be given that power in the first place. Why? Because that integrity itself is not aligned with how law is practiced in our polity. And then we ended up with the worst of both worlds, neither an institution that works nor one that is trusted to have any integrity.

Your suggestion reminded me of a comment I previously contributed to another discussion on the same theme of the rule of law. Sharing it here in interest of relevance. << https://www.legallyindia.com/convos/topic/423362-t#comment-423927 >>.

They can strike down punishments as disproportionate. But they cannot create new punishments, or enhance existing ones, as it would directly violate Article 20(1):

"No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence."