Abstract
One of the most controversial parts of India’s criminal justice system is the death penalty. Though constitutionally valid and legally permissible under specific statutory provisions, its application has consistently raised concerns regarding arbitrariness, disproportionate sentencing, and potential violations of human rights. The Indian Supreme Court, while upholding the constitutionality of capital punishment, has significantly narrowed its scope through the “rarest of rare” doctrine, yet inconsistencies in its application persist.
This article aims to undertake a comprehensive examination of the death penalty in India by exploring its historical origins, legal framework, judicial interpretations, procedural safeguards, socio-economic impact, international obligations, and recent developments. The article also delves into prominent case laws that have shaped the doctrine and contributed to a more nuanced understanding of capital punishment in the Indian context. Ultimately, the article seeks to offer critical insights into the debate between retributive justice and reformative ideals, while also exploring alternatives and recommendations for the future.
Historical Context and Legal Framework
India’s capital punishment has its origins in ancient civilizations, when it was frequently applied to a range of offenses, including treason, murder, and theft. The legitimacy of state-sanctioned executions as essential to upholding order was established by texts such as the Manusmriti and Arthashastra. Through the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, which remains India’s main substantive criminal law, the British colonial government formalized the practice.
The IPC allows the death penalty for crimes like murder (Section 302), war against the Indian government (Section 121), and dacoity with murder (Section 396).India kept the colonial penal system after gaining independence, including the death penalty, because it was thought to be necessary in dire circumstances. However, Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, which requires courts to document “special reasons” for imposing the death penalty, added a crucial safeguard and steered sentencing discretion toward life in prison as the standard.
Constitutional Validity and Early Judicial Approach
Jagmohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1973) was the first case to thoroughly examine the constitutionality of the death penalty. The Supreme Court affirmed the punishment, holding that it was constitutional as long as due process was followed. The Court stressed that the imposition of death was based on judicial discretion directed by legislation and that the legal process outlined in Article 21 was being followed.
However, in Rajendra Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1979), Justice Krishna Iyer contended that the death penalty should only be applied to criminals who represent an extraordinary threat to society and in situations where no other form of punishment would be sufficient, raising concerns about arbitrary imposition and prompting further investigation. This ruling established the groundwork for an enhanced reformative and based on rights conversation about the death penalty, despite the fact that it was not unanimous.
The Rarest of Rare Doctrine: A Constitutional Balancing Act
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) is a seminal case that reshaped Indian jurisprudence regarding the death penalty. The Supreme Court’s five-judge panel affirmed the death penalty’s constitutionality by a 4:1 majority, but with a crucial caveat: it should only be applied in the “rarest of rare” circumstances where life in prison is clearly the only viable alternative. The Court mandated that death be reserved for cases in which the collective conscience is so shocked that life in prison would be insufficient, and it established a balancing test between aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
Although the doctrine left much up to judicial interpretation, it attempted to offer a principled framework for sentencing. In Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983), the Court further developed this theory by establishing particular categories—such as the type of crime, the motivation, and the manner of execution—to direct the application of the “rarest of rare” principle. Nevertheless, the doctrine’s inherent subjectivity has led to uneven application in cases that are similar.
Procedural Safeguards and Sentencing Discretion
In order to prevent the death penalty from being applied arbitrarily or unfairly, procedural safeguards are essential. In order to give the accused the opportunity to present mitigating circumstances, Section 235(2) of the CrPC mandates a separate hearing for sentencing following conviction. The Supreme Court upheld the need for tailored sentencing in order to maintain equity in Santa Singh v. State of Punjab (1976). Furthermore, courts are required by Section 354(3) to document any special justifications for granting death sentences.
However, insufficient legal counsel and a cursory examination of mitigating circumstances have frequently compromised these statutory provisions. According to the National Law University Delhi’s 2016 Death Penalty India Report, a large number of death row inmates came from underprivileged or marginalized communities and lacked access to knowledgeable legal representation. Because of systemic disparities in legal aid and judicial reasoning, judicial discretion—despite being intended to ensure fairness—has frequently led to disproportionate sentencing patterns.
Socio-Economic and Caste Biases in Death Penalty Cases
The inherent socioeconomic and caste bias that permeates the criminal justice system is a crucial issue that is frequently ignored in discussions of the death penalty. According to studies, the majority of death row inmates are members of underprivileged social groups, social classes, or religious minorities.
These people frequently lack the funds for skilled legal counsel and are forced to rely on overworked and underfunded legal aid attorneys. Due to poor cross-examination, a lackluster defense, and a lackluster presentation of reducing factors, they are more likely to be given the death penalty. This institutionalized bias calls into question the fairness of capital punishment in India and threatens the equality before the law stipulated in Article 14.The inequity in sentencing also emphasizes how urgently the legal aid and access to justice systems need to be changed.
Public Sentiment, Heinous Crimes, and Legislative Changes
Following horrific crimes, public outcry frequently prompts judicial and legislative actions that support the death penalty’s continued use. An important example is the gang rape case in Nirbhaya in 2012. The Criminal Law ( Amendment ) Act of 2013, which broadened the application of the capital punishment to include exacerbated forms of rape, was the result of widespread demonstrations and calls for justice. In a similar vein, the 2018 amendment made raping girls younger than 12 punishable by death.
Although the goal of these reforms was to ensure deterrence and reflect public outrage, they have come under fire for taking a populist and punitive stance instead of addressing the underlying issues, which include subpar victim support, slow trials, and poor policing. The death penalty should not be implemented, according to the Justice Verma Committee, which was established after Nirbhaya. The committee emphasized that this could discourage reporting and possibly result in the murder of victims in order to destroy evidence. However, media narratives and political pressures have frequently influenced legislation more than factual data or professional advice.
Recent Judicial Trends and Reformative Approach
Indian courts have been hesitant to impose the death penalty in recent years, frequently choosing life in prison when reformation is possible. The Supreme Court stressed in ChhannuLal Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh (2018) that reformation must be a primary factor before imposing death and commuted the sentence due to an insufficient evaluation of the convicted person’s background. Similar to this, the court overturned the death sentence in Mohd. Mannan v. State of Bihar (2019), pointing out procedural errors and the convicted person’s capacity for reformation. Given the lack of deterrent value and the irreversibility of mistakes, the Law Commission of India’s 262nd Report (2015) recommended abolishing the death penalty for all crimes other than terrorism and war waging.
These changes show that the judiciary and policy discourse are increasingly moving toward a criminal justice system that is more compassionate and transformative.
Conclusion and Recommendations
In India, the death penalty remains a paradoxical legal framework, both constitutional and subject to growing restrictions. Although the “rarest of rare” doctrine aims to restrict its use, its legitimacy and equity are compromised by procedural errors, socioeconomic biases, and inconsistent judicial reasoning. Despite the judiciary’s efforts to strike a balance between individual rights and societal interests, the death penalty’s continued use in a flawed system raises ethical and legal concerns.
India needs to take the death penalty seriously going forward, or at the very least, restrict its use to the most dire situations, while also bolstering legal representation and procedural protections. For justice to be done—and seen to be done—institutional reforms, judicial consistency, and legislative clarity are necessary. The assurance of fairness, equality, and the right to life in the constitution will be better served by a justice system based on reformative ideals rather than retributive impulses.
Frequently Asked Questions ( Faq’s)
- Does India allow the death penalty?
According to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980), the death penalty is permitted in India and is only applied in the “rarest of rare” circumstances.
- Which offenses in India carry the death penalty?
The death penalty is applicable for crimes such as murder (Section 302 IPC), terrorism, waging war against the state (Section 121 IPC), certain rape cases, and repeat offenses.
- Is it possible to commute a death sentence in India?
Indeed, through review by the courts or by submitting a mercy petition to the governors (Article 161) or the president (Article 72), a death sentence may be commuted to life in prison.
Author Name – Pravesh Choudhary, Lords University, Alwar
