Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab

Introduction to Death Penalty in India

The death penalty, also known as capital punishment, is an overtalked and complex issue within India’s criminal judicial system. Although it remains a legal form of punishment, its use has been heavily scrutinized, and India has adopted a cautious approach, looking at the conditions for implementing capital punishment only in cases that meet the “rarest of rare” standards. This principle was established in the landmark Supreme Court case Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980), where the Court examined the constitutionality of the death penalty, exploring whether it violated the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

India’s legal framework includes the death penalty as a punishment for a limited number of severe crimes, including murder, terrorism, and certain offenses against the state. However, because of its irreversible nature and the global trend toward its abolition, Indian courts have been increasingly reserved in applying this punishment. The Bachan Singh case became a turning point in Indian legal history, leading the Supreme Court to limit the death penalty’s application strictly. Through this case, the Court established a rigorous standard, the “rarest of rare” doctrine, to ensure the death penalty is applied only in situations where the crime’s brutality and the offender’s nature make it the sole viable punishment.

This doctrine reflects a balance between the demands for justice in society’s most grievous cases and the judiciary’s responsibility to uphold constitutional protections for human life. By addressing this case and its outcome, we gain insight into how the Indian legal system approaches the most severe punishment, the evolution of its stance on human rights, and the ongoing debate surrounding the ethical and practical implications of the death penalty.

Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab: Case Summary

Court: Supreme Court of India Citation: AIR 1980 SC 898

Bench: Constitution Bench comprising Justices Y.V. Chandrachud, N.L. Untwalia, P.N. Bhagwati, R.S. Sarkaria, and A.D. Koshal.

Introduction:

Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab is a landmark case in the history of Indian jurisprudence and relief towards criminal activities, especially concerning the application of the death penalty. This case examined the constitutionality of the death penalty in India under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Article 21 (Right to Life) of the Constitution. The case’s significance lies in establishing the “rarest of rare” doctrine, which is now the prevailing standard for awarding capital punishment in India.

Background and Facts:

The appellant, Bachan Singh, was convicted and sentenced to death by the trial court for the brutal murder of three people, including his wife, under Section 302 of the IPC. His appeal to the High Court was unsuccessful, and the case was brought before the Supreme Court. The primary argument revolved around whether the death penalty under Section 302, read with Section 354(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), violated Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

Key Legal Issues:

The Supreme Court had to address several core issues:

1. Constitutionality of the Death Penalty: Was the death penalty as a form of punishment inherently unconstitutional under the fundamental rights of life and personal liberty (Article 21)?
2. Interpretation of “Procedure Established by Law”: How far can the State’s power extend in curtailing life and liberty? And does this hamper their future security of life?
3. Arbitrariness in Awarding the Death Sentence: Can the discretion or this special power provided under Section 354(3) CrPC lead to inconsistent application, making the punishment arbitrary or does this give them an extra rule of power in their hand?

Arguments Presented:

By the Appellant (Bachan Singh):

1. Violation of Article 21: The appellant argued that the death penalty, irrespective of the circumstances, violated the Right to Life guaranteed under Article 21.
2. Alternative Punishments: It was suggested that life imprisonment could be a more humane alternative, allowing for the potential reformation of the offender.
3. Judicial Discretion and Arbitrariness: There was concern that Section 354(3) of the CrPC, which vests discretion in the courts to choose between life imprisonment and the death penalty, could lead to arbitrary and inconsistent decisions and also gives extra power in the hands of the rule makers which could be misused at times?

By the Respondent (State of Punjab):

1. Legislative Intent: The State argued that the death penalty was a valid punitive option as sanctioned by Parliament looking at the seriousness of the crime that was committed and the brutality.
2. Public Safety and Deterrence: It contended that the death penalty served as a deterrent to serious crimes and protected society from individuals committing heinous offenses and also laid an example for people who further would think a thousand times before committing crimes of any such kind.
3. Judicial Safeguards: The State maintained that adequate safeguards were in place, as only the rarest and most severe cases were awarded the death penalty. It was not an intent by the government to localize or normalize this punishment.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court, by a majority, upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty in India. Justice Sarkaria delivered the majority opinion, which established the guiding principle that the death penalty should only be imposed in the “rarest of rare” cases. The cases which in their nature are so brutal and heinous that it lays down a trauma over the society need something like a death penalty.

Important Fundamental Findings:

 

1. Constitutionality of the Death Penalty: – The Court upheld that the death penalty was constitutionally valid and did not violate Article 21, provided it was imposed through a fair legal process.

• It rejected the argument that the death penalty per se violates the fundamental right to Instead, it concluded that capital punishment could serve a valid legislative purpose and act as a societal deterrent.

2. Section 354(3) and Judicial Discretion: – The Court interpreted Section 354(3) of the CrPC as requiring “special reasons” to be recorded for imposing the death penalty over life imprisonment. This safeguard mandates that judges evaluate the specific circumstances and motivations behind each crime.
   • It placed significant responsibility on judges to use their discretion carefully, applying the death penalty only when life imprisonment would be inadequate for achieving justice.

3. Rarest of Rare Doctrine: This doctrine is the most notable outcome of Bachan The Court ruled that capital punishment should only be imposed in cases so grave and uncommon that no other punishment would be proportionate. It suggested that factors like the brutality of the crime, the vulnerability of the victim, and the impact on society should be considered in deciding if a case falls into this category.
4. Balancing Mitigating and Aggravating Circumstances – The Court emphasized a balanced assessment of aggravating and mitigating factors. Mitigating factors could include the defendant’s mental state, the absence of a prior criminal record, and the possibility of reformation.

• Aggravating factors, on the other hand, would involve the cruelty of the act, prior convictions, or the offender’s dangerousness to society.

Dissenting Opinion:

Justice Bhagwati dissented, expressing strong opposition to the death penalty and arguing that it was unconstitutional. He stated that the death penalty could never be justifiable under Article 21 and advocated for its complete abolition. He argued some better prevention or punishment methods to be introduced.

Impact of the Judgment:

1. Evolution of Capital Punishment Law:

– The Bachan Singh ruling significantly influenced the application of the death penalty in India. It was now restricted to the most exceptional cases, and judges were required to provide detailed justification for awarding the death sentence.

2. Guidelines for Future Cases:

-The “rarest of rare” doctrine has guided subsequent judicial decisions on capital punishment, ensuring it is awarded sparingly. Courts now meticulously consider mitigating and aggravating circumstances before delivering a death sentence.

3. A Higher Standard of Judicial Review:

-The Supreme Court’s judgment in Bachan Singh mandated a higher standard for judicial review in capital cases. This involved both the principle of proportionality and careful application of discretion, reducing the likelihood of arbitrary sentencing.

4. Human Rights Concerns:

– The judgment sparked broader debates on human rights and criminal justice reform in India. The rigorous threshold set for death penalty cases led to a broader examination of rehabilitation and reformation as alternatives to extreme punishment.

5. Influence on Subsequent Cases:

-Bachan Singh, the “rarest of rare” standard has been applied in various landmark cases such as Machhi Singh vs. State of Punjab (1983), which provided further clarification by enumerating circumstances that might justify a death sentence, including mass killings and murders of particularly vulnerable victims.

Criticism and Limitations:

Despite its impact, the Bachan Singh judgment has not been free from criticism it has been criticized on the following grounds:

1. Subjectivity in the “Rarest of Rare” Test:

– Critics argue that determining what constitutes the “rarest of rare” can be subjective, leading to inconsistent application across different cases.

2. Arbitrariness in Sentencing:

– The reliance on judicial discretion, even with the “rarest of rare” framework, has raised concerns about

arbitrariness. The doctrine’s interpretation often depends on individual judges’ perceptions, leading to potential variability in sentencing.

3. Evolving Standards of Justice:

– Given the global shift toward the abolition of capital punishment, there is an increasing call for India to align with international human rights standards. This has led to debates about whether the “rarest of rare” doctrine alone can sufficiently safeguard human rights.

Conclusion:

The Bachan Singh v State of Punjab case represents a foundational judgment in Indian criminal law. By introducing the “rarest of rare” standard, it aimed to strike a balance between upholding the death penalty as a deterrent and minimizing its application to prevent potential miscarriages of justice. This case has not only guided the Indian judiciary in capital punishment cases but has also contributed to the broader discourse on human rights and criminal justice reform in India.

The debates initiated by this judgment continue, particularly concerning the effectiveness and ethics of the death penalty in contemporary society. Nonetheless, Bachan Singh remains a landmark decision, embodying the judiciary’s commitment to upholding constitutional values while dealing with the most severe forms of crime.