Published On: 25th December, 2024
Authored By: Shrinkhla Singh
VIT School of Law, Chennai
Introduction
The issue of the death penalty is perhaps the most contentious in the legal environment of India, evoking extreme emotions in relation to justice, morality and human rights. Borrowed from the colonial past, the death penalty has since transformed with time especially after India gained independence, becoming implemented in laws and court decisions. Some support it, maintaining that it provides deterrence to serious offenses, others oppose it, arguing that it makes it impossible to right wrongs where justice has gone to the extreme and questions its place in human rights. This article studies the relationship between judicial trends and public opinion through major cases included in the capital punishment debate. In addition, it touches on the moral issues that come with the use of capital punishment and the consequences of recent decisions on the status of the death penalty in India.
Background
India has a documented historical trend where the death penalty existed along with rules that were exerted even before independence. Such laws came in many forms and one such formidable tool was the Indian Penal Code (IPC) which was promulgated in 1860. Even after the British colonization ended in 1947, the country of India continued to practice capital punishment as the constitution in place made provisions for the practice of the same. In particular, death penalty statutes have successfully come under scrutiny under Article 21 (protection of Life and Personal Liberty) of the Constitution.
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita: Historical Importance: The Indian Penal Code (IPC), drafted during British colonial rule in 1860, is a crucial legislative tool that highlights various crimes and their punishments, which include death.
Post-Colonial Constructs: Views regarding abolishing the death penalty in practice have been designed against the background of the catch-22 situation that exists when former colonial territories are reunited.
Landmark decisions such as Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P. (1973)[1] and Rajendra Prasad v. State of U.P. (1979)[2] highlighted the constitutional controversies stating that while the death penalty may be constitutionally acceptable, it should be exercised with restraint and caution. These arguments opened the floodgates for later discussions on the moral aspect of the death penalty and its relevance in a contemporary state.
The introduction of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, has once again drawn attention to the policy implications of capital sentencing in India. The significance of this statutory provision is premised on its intention to substitute the IPC and such will also drastically alter the criminal justice system including the issues of imposition of capital punishment and the circumstances under which it can be issued.
Landmark Judgments and the “Rarest of Rare” Doctrine
This shows that the “rarest of the rare” principle is fairly recent as it was culled out of the Supreme Court case Bachan Singh v. In the case of the State of Punjab (1980)[3], which transformed the use of the death penalty in India. In the instant case, the appellant Bachan Singh was convicted of murder and awarded the death penalty. Thus, the Supreme Court confirming the death penalty in the instant case has precisely held that the capital punishment is deserved only in “rarest of the rare” cases where the surrounding circumstances of the crime are rather persuasive.
Explanatory Brief on the Case
In the Bachan Singh case, the Supreme Court brought a new kind of turn in the judicial stance on the death penalty. The court stressed the need for a clear system that would help to differentiate between the cases why is death penalty can be given and cases why life imprisonment could be sufficient. The judgment held that the death penalty should only be given where life imprisonment would not have been an appropriate punishment especially given the characteristics of the crime, its background, and the effect the crime has on society.
Subsequently, in a later case, known as Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983)[4]. In issuing its decision the Supreme Court did not narrow the “rarest of rare” concept any further, it defined certain factors that must be taken into consideration in the cases where the death penalty is applied. Such factors include the kind of crime committed, the process in which the crime was executed, the reason for performing the crime, and the consequences that result from the offense. This ruling was intended to eliminate some of the confusion and arbitrariness injected with the application of capital penalty.
Recently certain most particularly infamous cases like the Nirbhaya gang rape[5] and murder case of the year 2012, have been considered under the doctrine of ‘rarest of the rare’. Here especially, due to the extent of violence in the commission of the crime and the public outrage that ensued, the courts justified capital punishment. But critics have also been worried about the subjectivism that the church leadership has taken on the matter, on one hand, and allegations of arbitrariness regarding the death penalty on the other hand.
Some have assumed that the vagaries in the appurtenances of assessing a ‘rarest of the rare’ case allow room for subjectivity and hence bias within the judicial structure. This is rather dubious and raises quite a lot of issues about equity and justice in a society unsure of how its legal system will treat it, especially the minority. While the debate around capital punishment continues to rage, critical issues of application of the ‘rarest of the rare’ doctrine continue to be a core contentious issue of the Indian Legal System.
Ethical and Legal Debates[6]
Speaking of the ethical controversy of the death penalty, it is necessary to mention that they border on many points that can be referred both to the proponents of such practice and to the opponents. Supporters contend that the death penalty helps reduce high rates of other severe crimes helps prosecute criminals bring justice to the victims and their loved ones. They argue that some crimes are so heinous that nothing else can adequately punish the offenders other than the death penalty. On the other hand, some arguments advocate against the death penalty in as much as they trample on some human rights such as the right to life. They express worries on wrong morphine convictions which they illustrate with several cases of people who have been wrongly convicted and have been sentenced to death. Also, there is evidence that capital punishment acts as a reverse outcome and is particularly bias discriminating against colour minority groups. Abolitionism is currently the dominant trend in the world, and many states have a minus for the death penalty for reasons of their moralities. Indian involvement with these global human rights norms is still after that contributed to the debates on the death penalty that calls for proper analysis of the same in Indian law.
Psychological Impact on Death Row Inmates
The “death row phenomenon[7]” refers to manifestations of psychological stress to which a condemned prisoner is subjected in the process of awaiting execution and which is usually worsened by an ambiguous period of waiting. This may result in considerable anxiety, depression, and even psychological states such as post-traumatic stress disorder due to the constant aggressive actions threatening death and possible involvement of the judicial system.
Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014)[8]
In Reference to (8) Union of India (2014) the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a separate opinion on delay in executing the death sentence particularly when the matter is hanging on mercy petitions touched the aspect of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which guarantees Right to life and personal liberty. The court saw that when the execution of a death sentence is delayed without reason, it causes the sufferer severe psychological harm, or torture. It said that such delays if protracted could trigger the replacement of the death penalty with a life term. This decision stressed two things, to wit: the innate human value of the defendants regarding their death penalty and the effect of dignity for inmates on death row.
The court also emphasized the desirability of early disposal of mercy petitions since delay only worsens the suffering of the condemned inmates. Many executions in this case were replaced with lifetime imprisonments because of delays.
Triveniben v. State of Gujarat (1988)[9]
This earlier case had likewise struck that unduly delays as perpetrated in executing the penalties of death could warrant reconsideration. This is one and half years of incarceration in inhuman conditions and which hits the constitution squarely, as rightly pointed out by Shatrughan Chauhan about mental health, while agreeing that the death penalty itself is not unconstitutional, but its execution cannot be unfair.
Clemency, Pardons, and Judicial Delays
Mercy and remission are also essential components of the context of capital punishment in India so that the president or the state governor can act in relation to the death penalty. While Article 72[10] of the constitution seeks to provide the President with the power to pardon offenders, grant reprieves, respite, or remission of punishment, Article 161 of the same constitution gives the same powers to the Governor. These provisions are meant to act as brakes on the judicial system, where there should be mercy during extraordinary circumstances. However, there have always been some concerns on the exercise of the power of clemency especially the speed of the general process. Shooting Time Case / The SC Judgment in Shatrughan Chauhan v. In the Union of India (2014), dominant delays in executions of the death penalty affected the mental health of prisoners with death sentences. It gave importance that mercy petitions should be disposed of as quickly as possible thereby repeating its sentiment that slow decision-making amounts to psychological torture. It draws attention to how two branches of government operate about another branch and the rights of citizens on the death penalty.
Conclusion
Thousands of innocents no doubt, have died by this punishment as it had no scope of law. Each country in which capital punishment has been banned has its reasons in the historical and political context. Supreme Court rulings have also determined how the death penalty has been applied and practiced. The scope and content of these discussions depict the attitudes of sections of society towards justice and human rights and how they evolve. Even though India is moving on, how the public, the courts, and the human rights regime intertwine together will decide the fate of the death penalty in the future. The possibility of reforms, such as life imprisonment without parole, may indicate the broadening of the scope towards less violent justice. Most importantly, the public debate on the death penalty reiterates that this is one of the most serious penalties that any society can inflict and hence needs to be treated with utmost care and kindness.
Reference(s):
[1] Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P., (1973) 1 S.C.C. 20 (India)
[2] Rajendra Prasad v. State of U.P., (1979) 3 S.C.C. 646 (India).
[3] Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 S.C.C. 684 (India).
[4] Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 S.C.C. 470 (India).
[5] Mukesh v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2017) 6 S.C.C. 1 (India).
[6] Symbiosis Law School Nagpur Multidisciplinary Law Review, ISSN 2583-1984 (Online), Vol. 1, Iss. 1, 2021, at 26-37.
[7] Death Penalty Information Centre, Death Row: Time on Death Row, https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/death-row/death-row-time-on-death-row (last visited Oct. 10, 2024).
[8] Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India, (2014) 3 S.C.C. 1 (India).
[9] Triveniben v. State of Gujarat, (1988) 4 S.C.C. 574 (India).
[10] Drishti IAS, Pardoning Power of the President, https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-news-analysis/pardoning-power-of-the-president/print_manually (last visited Oct. 10, 2024).
