Published on: 28th January 2026
Authored by: Shubham Tandon
Jaipur School Of Law
FACTS
The tragic rape and murder of an eight-year-old girl in Madhya Pradesh prompted the case of Manoj & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh. The trial court found the defendants guilty of offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act (POCSO), 2012, and the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860. The offender was sentenced to death by the trial court because of the extreme nature of the crime. The Madhya Pradesh High Court, on appeal, affirmed the conviction and the sentence.
During a further appeal, the accused argued that the sentencing hearing was illegal. Specifically, they contended that since the sentencing was done on the same day as the conviction, they were denied the opportunity to produce mitigating evidence. Further, they argued that the trial court and the High Court had overlooked the mitigating factors of their mental health, reformative potential, good conduct in jail, and socio-economic disadvantage.
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but changed the death sentence to life imprisonment. It held that the sentencing proceeding was defective and violative of Article 21 constitutional rights.
ISSUES RAISED
- Was the penalty’s employment in line with the concept of individualized sentencing as per Article 21 of the Indian Constitution?
- Is the right to a fair trial violated in the case of a same-day sentencing because the accused is significantly deprived of the opportunity to provide mitigating evidence?
- Are trial judges obliged to collect mitigating evidence instead of directly handing over the responsibility to defense attorneys?
- Is the abolition of the death penalty’s arbitrary and inconsistent application contingent upon the introduction of structural changes?
CONTENTIONS
For the Appellants (Accused):
- The trial court unfairly sentenced the denial of the fair sentence as it did not allow sufficient time for the presentation of mitigation evidence.
- The procedures for sentencing on the same day were also procedurally unjust and unconstitutional.
- In accordance with the “rarest of rare” standard laid down in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684, the death sentence should be commuted to life imprisonment.
- The judges ignored the mitigating factors like socio-economic background, mental condition, and potential for reform.
For the Respondent (State):
- The trial court had thoroughly considered the aggravating factors.
- The death penalty was demanded by the public conscience and societal deterrence.
- Extremely grave was the offense that made it fall into the “rarest of rare” category and, thus, deserving of the sternest penalty.
Rationale
The Supreme Court retained the conviction, but the death penalty was changed to a life sentence. The logic behind the decision was complex and involved the following points:
(a) The Court held that not only the trial but also the sentencing have to be fair. Sentencing is a careful weighing of aggravating and mitigating factors as was pointed out in the cases of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684 and Mithu v. State of Punjab, (1983) 2 SCC 277. The death penalty cannot be the automatic result of the courts’ decision.
(b) Condomning strongly same-day sentencing, the Court said that it was illegal on a constitutional level. The presentation of the mitigating circumstances cannot be rushed. Procedural fairness is broken when the proceedings are carried out in a hasty manner. In the case of Mohd. Mannan v. State of Bihar, (2019) 16 SCC 584, the Court, endorsing this line of thought, stressed the importance of the role of the mitigation process.
(c) The court held that the trial courts have the initiative to seek socioeconomic, psychological, and psychiatric information. The State is additionally obligated to facilitate such information for the courts. In Santa Singh v. State of Punjab, (1976) 4 SCC 190, the court identified sentencing as a different stage requiring full representation opportunity, which is in harmony with the standards set there.
(d) The court pointed out that even though it recognized the terrible nature of the case, capital punishment should be the exception and not the rule. The Court indicated, by employing the Bachan Singh criteria, that a death sentence is illegal when the mitigating factors are not adequately considered.
( e )Comparative Jurisprudence and International Standards
The US Supreme Court in Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (1982) has reiterated the importance of providing the mitigating evidence prior to giving a death sentence.
Similarly, the European Court of Human Rights has always emphasized procedural justice and proportionality in decisions involving life or death
By referring to international standards, the Manoj decision makes Indian jurisprudence conform more with the human rights standards set by the United Nations. This comparative perspective emphasizes that the universality of the idea that justice in sentencing is as important as justice in the trial.
Citation to a Bigger Bench
In dealing with the issue of the structurally unequal use of the death penalty, the Court handed down the decision to a Constitution Bench referring the matters. The point of this referral is to lessen the unpredictability of the situation by setting forth clear principles of mitigation.
(g) Comparative Constitutional Perspectives
The Indian Supreme Court’s demand for a personalized sentence is in tune with worldwide constitutional evolutions. In S v. Makwanyane (1995), the South African Constitutional Court did away with the death penalty, emphasizing the concepts of human dignity and fairness. In like manner, the UN Human Rights Committee under the ICCPR Article 6 also disapproves of the death penalty and insists on thorough mitigation measures. Consequently, the Manoj decision places Indian law in the framework of a universal human rights agreement.
Defects of Law
Even though the decision refines life imprisonment jurisprudence, it still has some shortcomings:
- Ambiguity of the “Rarest of Rare” Doctrine: The Court emphasized the subjectivity of “rarest of rare” classification but it did not clarify the criteria.
- Reliance on Judicial Discretion: Despite the existence of rules, much depends on the subjective views of individual judges, which may result in arbitrariness.
- Implementation Gap: The state apparatus is often insufficiently equipped to provide the required support even though the expert report requirement is resource-intensive.
- Silent on Legislative Intervention: While the Court acknowledged the need for systemic change, it did not direct Parliament to review the death penalty laws in detail.
- Delayed Structural Reform: It may take a long time before the Constitution Bench refers to it, which will make current sentencing standards incompatible.
6. No Sentencing Guidelines: India does not have codified standards like the US Sentencing Guidelines or UK’s Sentencing Council framework. Anup Surendranath and other scholars have pointed out that the “rarest of the rare” concept is grammatically incorrect because it is based on judicial subjectivity. So, it is imperative that the law be involved to bring about consistency.
Besides that, there is also a problem of institutional unpreparedness to implement the Court’s orders. In India, lower courts are very often poorly equipped with access to qualified psychologists, psychiatrists, and social workers. Without these professional assessments, sentencing may remain at the level of mere appearances. The State apparatus has traditionally found it difficult to produce comprehensive pre-sentencing reports, which has led to the uneven implementation of them across different jurisdictions. This disparity undermines the very principle of individualized punishment which is at the core and allows for arbitrariness in cases even if judges are of the best intentions.
INFERENCE
Judicial death penalty jurisprudence in India experienced a radical change with the Manoj decision. The court exercised its power under Article 21 to grant relief in a most spectacular manner by converting the punishment to one of life imprisonment and ordering individualized sentencing. It prohibited in the strongest of terms the practice of passing the sentence on the same day and directed that the accused be allowed sufficient time for the submission of mitigating circumstances. The judgment localizes the death penalty’s usage and guarantees the observance of due process as it places the responsibility of gathering the mitigation on the State and courts.
On the other hand, it also finds that the points it raises with regard to the ‘rarest of the rare’ standard, such as its indefiniteness, dependence on the discretion of the judiciary and the gap between the implementation are better understood as recognition of the problems which, notwithstanding the ruling, still exist. Even if judges take the initiative, arbitrariness will continue if institutional reforms and changes in the law by the legislature are not taken into account.
Pointing to those problems, the Manoj verdict still aligns Indian law with international human rights standards that increasingly call for abolition of the death penalty.
The ruling moves the Indian criminal system slightly to the left of the spectrum towards restorative justice paradigms. The focus on reformative potential reflects the idea that is already implicitly present in juvenile justice law, which gives primacy to rehabilitation rather than punishment. Manoj, if used as a precedent in every case, might become instrumental in bringing about a change of the sentencing culture to one that is more compassionate, not only in the case of serious crimes but in other areas of the law as well.
The Manoj ruling is not limited only to the death penalty. By insisting on full mitigation and individual assessment, the Court, in a roundabout way, is petitioning for changes in the range of punishments. In that sector of the law which deals with non-capital cases, it is very common that automatic sentencing, inter alia, disregards the offender’s background and the possibility of his/her reformation. Application of the principles enshrined in the Manoj case in a uniform manner may have the effect of bringing the Indian criminal justice system more in line with the paradigms of restorative justice as well as the principles of a reform-oriented system which is less recidivated and more human in nature and which sees the offender as a subject of rehabilitation.
In a way, it is the judiciary that is the main message of this case: on the one hand, the court exercises restraint in employing the death penalty; on the other, it is apprehensive about its continuance. More than anything else, it is this case that shows, albeit slowly and with a measure of determination, the movement from a legal system where retaliation is the rule to one which is accountable, just and respects human dignity.\
Additional References and Developments
Post-Manoj Judicial Practice
– After the Supreme Court decision in the case of Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022), a number of High Courts are demanding the preparation of psychological examination reports and studies of socio-economic background before giving a judgment in a capital case
– It is worth noting that the Delhi High Court (2023-2024) ordered trial courts to get psychiatric and social background reports and emphasized that the sentencing has to be done on an individual basis and that it cannot be done quickly.
– Several other High Courts such as Madhya Pradesh and Bihar have referred the Manoj case holding that deciding on the sentence on the same day amounts to a violation of Article 21 and that courts should not rely solely on the defense counsel for the gathering of mitigation evidence but, should actively do it themselves.
Table of Cases referred
- State of Punjab v. Bachan Singh, 1980) 2 SCC 684.
- State of Punjab v. Mithu, 2 SCC 277 (1983).
- State of Punjab v. Santa Singh, 4 SCC 190 (1976).
- State of Bihar v. Mohd. Mannan, 16 SCC 584 (2019).
- State of Madhya Pradesh v. Manoj & Ors., 2022 6 SCC 1.
Laws
Article No. 45 of 1860, the Indian Penal Code.
- The Indian law known as the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act, No. 32 of 2012. (POCSO-32)
- Article 21 of the Indian Constitution: Reports and Secondary
Sources
- The Death Penalty, Law Commission of India, Report No. 262, 2015.
- The Death Penalty India Report, Project 39A, National Law University Delhi, 2016.
- Vikramaditya Khanna and Anup Surendranath, Sentencing in Indian Capital Cases, 25 Nat’l L. Sch. India Rev. 1 (2013).
