Sentencing constitutes one of the most critical stages of criminal justice administration, reflecting the balance between legal certainty and individualized justice. Across jurisdictions, criminal justice systems struggle to reconcile structured sentencing frameworks, designed to ensure consistency and proportionality, with judicial discretion, which allows courts to tailor punishment according to the circumstances of each case. This article undertakes a comparative examination of global sentencing models, analyzing structured sentencing systems developed in jurisdictions such as the United States and the United Kingdom, where sentencing guidelines and commissions seek to reduce disparity and enhance transparency. In contrast, the Indian sentencing framework remains largely discretion-driven, with limited statutory guidance under the BNS and BNSS. Judicial pronouncements, particularly through doctrines evolved by the Supreme Court of India, have attempted to introduce principles such as proportionality, individualized sentencing, and the “rarest of rare” standard in capital punishment cases. However, absence of formal sentencing guidelines has resulted in concerns regarding inconsistency, unpredictability, and potential arbitrariness. The study evaluates international best practices, including sentencing grids, advisory guidelines, and sentencing councils, to assess their relevance for India. It argues that an optimal sentencing model lies not in eliminating judicial discretion but in structuring it through principled frameworks that promote uniformity while preserving judicial independence. The article concludes by proposing the establishment of a national sentencing commission in India, capable of harmonizing sentencing practices with constitutional values, human rights standards, and contemporary criminological insights.