Published On: 11th December, 2024
Authored By: Anjali Kumari
Amity law school Noida
The death penalty, also known as capital punishment, has been the subject of extensive deliberation in India, as it raises significant questions about ethics, legality, human rights, and the effectiveness of the criminal justice system. While upholding its constitutionality, the judiciary has emphasized that the death penalty should only be administered in the “rarest of rare” cases. This criterion, influenced by developing legal principles and societal perspectives, has shaped judicial patterns and the broader discourse on the death penalty in India.
Historical Context and Constitutional Validity
India has maintained the imposition of the death penalty since the time of British colonial rule. The Indian Penal Code (IPC) of 1860 mandates capital punishment for specific offences, such as murder (Section 302), terrorism, and kidnapping. Following independence, India supported this form of punishment despite increasing global opposition.
In the case of Jagmohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1973), the Supreme Court affirmed the death penalty’s constitutionality, asserting that it did not infringe upon Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. However, this was subject to the “procedure established by law,” indicating that the death penalty could only be imposed following a fair trial and perdue legal processes.
This stance was subsequently refined in the significant ruling of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980), in which the Court introduced the “rarest of rare” doctrine. The Court decreed that the death penalty should only be applied when the option of life imprisonment is unequivocally unavailable, and the nature of the crime is so heinous that it deeply offends the collective conscience of society.
Debates on the Death Penalty
The discourse concerning the death penalty in India encompasses moral, ethical, and pragmatic considerations. Advocates assert its indispensability as a deterrent for grievous crimes, while critics raise doubts about its effectiveness and ethical justification within a democratic framework.
Moral and Ethical Arguments
Opponents of capital punishment assert that it contravenes the sanctity of human life, a fundamental right protected by Article 21. They posit that no governing body should possess the authority to end a life, as the objective of penalization should prioritize rehabilitation over retaliation. Moreover, the irrevocable nature of the death penalty gives rise to apprehensions regarding erroneous convictions, wherein innocent individuals may be executed due to flawed evidence or judicial oversights.
Religious and philosophical contentions also contribute to this discourse, with various doctrines advocating clemency and reformation as opposed to retribution. Furthermore, the availability of alternative sanctions, such as life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, presents a less severe option, allowing for the punishment of the convicted while allowing rehabilitation.
Deterrence and Retribution
Proponents of capital punishment advocate for its efficacy as a deterrent against serious crimes such as terrorism, serial murders, and violent sexual offences. They contend that the fear of facing the death penalty dissuades potential offenders from engaging in similar acts. Notably, in high-profile cases like the Nirbhaya gang rape incident of 2012, public sentiment strongly supported the imposition of the death penalty as a means of delivering justice for the victim and sending a crucial societal message regarding the consequences of such abhorrent acts.
Nevertheless, the research on the deterrent impact of the death penalty yields inconclusive findings. Various studies have demonstrated that countries practising capital punishment do not consistently exhibit lower crime rates than those that do not. Furthermore, critics highlight the selective application of the death penalty, which disproportionately affects marginalized communities, thereby undermining its role as a fair form of justice.
International Comparisons and Human Rights
The global landscape regarding capital punishment has seen significant shifts, with over 140 countries having either abolished or ceased to practice the death penalty. Notably, many European nations and several Latin American countries have taken this stance. International bodies such as the United Nations and Amnesty International have been strong advocates for the global abolition of the death penalty, citing human rights violations and the potential for miscarriage of justice.
India has encountered criticism for upholding the death penalty, particularly within the framework of international human rights law. However, the country has defended its position, contending that the application of the death penalty is limited to the “rarest of rare” cases and is only imposed following thorough judicial scrutiny.
Judicial perspectives in India on the death penalty have evolved significantly, shaped by pivotal rulings that have refined the criteria for its application.
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980)
The “rarest of rare” doctrine established in Bachan Singh has been instrumental in guiding the judiciary. According to this ruling, the death penalty should only be imposed in cases where the crime is so heinous that it shocks the collective conscience of society and where the possibility of reforming the offender is non-existent. Factors such as the brutality of the crime, the motive behind it, and the socio-economic background of the accused are considered in determining the appropriateness of capital punishment.
Machi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983)
In Machi Singh, the Court elaborated on the criteria for imposing the death penalty, introducing a framework that considers the nature of the crime, the circumstances of the offender, and the impact of the crime on society. The Court emphasized that crimes committed with extreme depravity, such as mass murders or brutal killings, would justify the death penalty.
Review and Curative Petitions
In Mohd. Arif v. The Registrar, Supreme Court of India (2014), the Supreme Court ruled that death penalty cases require a higher degree of scrutiny. Consequently, curative petitions and review petitions in such cases are heard in open court, rather than through chambers, ensuring that the judiciary gives full consideration to the facts before confirming an execution.
Delay and Mercy Petitions
Delays in the execution of death sentences have been a critical aspect of death penalty jurisprudence. In cases like Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014), the Supreme Court held that undue delay in deciding mercy petitions can be grounds for commutation of the death sentence to life imprisonment. The Court recognized that prolonged incarceration on death row constitutes mental agony and can amount to cruel punishment.
Similarly, the Court has ruled in several cases that prisoners suffering from mental illness should not be executed, as seen in Navneet Kaur v. State of NCT of Delhi (2014), where the convict’s death sentence was commuted on the grounds of mental health deterioration due to prolonged delay.
Recent Trends and Public Opinion
The judiciary has recently imposed death sentences in cases that have garnered significant public attention, such as the Nirbhaya case and terrorism-related offences. However, public opinion on the death penalty remains divided. While there is support for capital punishment in cases of extreme brutality, there is also a growing movement advocating for its abolition, driven by human rights concerns and international pressure.
The judiciary, reflecting societal concerns, continues to approach the death penalty with caution, ensuring that it is reserved for the most heinous offences. At the same time, the increasing use of life imprisonment without parole as an alternative suggests a gradual shift away from capital punishment.
Conclusion
The death penalty in India remains a contentious issue, caught between calls for justice and human rights advocacy. While the Supreme Court’s “rarest of rare” doctrine attempts to limit its application, questions about deterrence, judicial fairness, and the potential for irreversible mistakes persist. As India navigates its criminal justice landscape, the death penalty will likely continue to provoke debate, shaped by evolving judicial trends, public opinion, and international norms.
