Death Penalty in India and its Constitutional Validity with Global Trends

Introduction

The death penalty, or capital punishment, is still one of the most controversial topics in modern law and human rights discussions. The discourse regarding the constitutional legitimacy of capital punishment in India has undergone substantial transformation since independence, mirroring extensive societal shifts and judicial interpretations of fundamental rights. The trend around the world is moving toward getting rid of the death sentence, but India still has it for the “rarest of rare” circumstances. This makes the legal and moral situation very complicated and needs to be looked at in depth.

This article looks at the constitutional framework that governs the death sentence in India, analyses important court decisions that have affected its use, and looks at current global tendencies toward ending the death penalty. The research shows that the country is stuck between old ideas about retributive justice and new ideas about human rights. It is trying to find the correct balance between protecting life and liberty in the Constitution and keeping the public secure.

Constitutional Framework of Death Penalty as a Punishment

The Indian Constitution does not specifically mention the death sentence, but it does set forth the basic rules that govern it. Article 21, which guarantees the fundamental right to life and personal liberty, states that “no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” This provision does not ban the death penalty; instead, it makes the right to life conditional, meaning that it can be taken away through due process of law.

The constitutional validity of capital punishment is supported by multiple constitutional clauses. Article 72 gives the President of India the right to issue pardons, reprieves, respites, or reductions in punishment, even death sentences. In the same way, Article 161 gives state governors similar authority. These provisions indirectly acknowledge the presence of capital punishment within the constitutional framework, indicating the framers’ endorsement of the death penalty as a legitimate form of punishment.

Also, the Constitution’s acknowledgment of different types of crimes and punishments in separate provisions adds to the argument that capital punishment is lawful. Article 359’s emergency provisions, which allow for the suspension of some basic rights during emergencies, show that constitutional rights are not absolute, including the right to life in certain situations.

Judicial Evolution of Death Penalty in INDIA

The constitutional validity of the death penalty in India has been repeatedly challenged and upheld through various landmark Supreme Court judgments that have shaped the contemporary understanding of capital punishment. The judicial evolution demonstrates a gradual refinement of death penalty jurisprudence, moving from broad acceptance to more restrictive application.

In Jagmohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1973) the five-judge bench of the Supreme Court, by a unanimous verdict, upheld the constitutional validity of death penalty held that capital punishment was not violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21. This foundational judgment established that the death penalty, when imposed through proper legal procedures, does not violate fundamental constitutional rights. The Court reasoned that the procedure established by law under Article 21 could include capital punishment for appropriate cases.

The Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) case marked a pivotal moment in Indian death penalty jurisprudence by introducing the “rarest of rare” doctrine. The Supreme Court held that the death penalty should be imposed only in the “rarest of rare cases” when the alternative option of life imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed. This judgment significantly restricted the scope of capital punishment application while maintaining its constitutional validity.

The subsequent case of Machi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) further elaborated on the “rarest of rare” doctrine by providing specific guidelines for determining when capital punishment should be imposed. The Court established that circumstances such as the manner of commission of murder, the motive for murder, the anti-social or abhorrent nature of crime, and the magnitude of the crime constitute aggravating circumstances justifying death penalty. However, recent judicial observations suggest that the categories or circumstances carved out in Machi Singh must not be understood as absolute, indicating continued evolution in judicial interpretation.

In the Mithu v. State of Punjab (1983) struck down Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code as unconstitutional. Section 303, which mandated capital punishment for offenders already serving life imprisonment who committed murder, was declared violative of Articles 21 and 14 of the Constitution as it did not give the judiciary the power to exercise discretion. This decision reinforced the principle that mandatory death sentences violate constitutional provisions by denying individualized sentencing.

In Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra (2009) further refined death penalty jurisprudence by emphasizing that life imprisonment is the rule and the death sentence is the exception, defined by the rarest of rare dicta, which serves as a guideline in implementing Section 354(3). This case reinforced the restrictive application of capital punishment while maintaining its constitutional validity for exceptional cases.

The case of Swamy Shraddha Nanda v. State of Karnataka (2008) introduced the concept of life imprisonment without remission as an alternative to death penalty in cases that do not qualify as “rarest of rare” but are too serious for ordinary life imprisonment. This judgment provided courts with an intermediate punishment option, further limiting the scope of capital punishment application.

Contemporary applications have demonstrated the Court’s continued willingness to apply capital punishment in exceptionally heinous crimes. In Mukesh & Anrs v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2017), relating to the 2012 Delhi gang rape case, the Supreme Court upheld death sentences for all four convicts, emphasizing that the brutality and diabolical nature of the crime shocked the collective conscience of society. The Court concluded that this case fell within the “rarest of rare” category due to the extreme brutality and social impact.

Similarly, in the case of Yakub Memon v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court upheld the death sentence for the 1993 Bombay bombings. Yakub Memon was found guilty of conspiracy through financing the attacks, with the Supreme Court confirming his conviction and death sentence on 21 March 2013. Memon was executed at Nagpur Central Jail on 30 July 2015, marking one of the few executions carried out in modern India.

However, the Court simultaneously struck down mandatory death sentences as unconstitutional. The Court struck down Section 303 of the IPC, which mandated a mandatory death sentence for offenders already serving life imprisonment, as unconstitutional. The Court held that a mandatory death sentence, without considering mitigating circumstances, violates Article 21. This decision emphasized the importance of individualized sentencing and judicial discretion in capital cases.

More recent developments have continued to refine death penalty application. Death penalty upheld for all 4 convicts due to the heinous nature of the crime. Justice R. Banumathi emphasised that aggravating factors outweighed mitigating circumstances in significant cases like the Delhi gang rape case, demonstrating the Court’s continued willingness to apply capital punishment in exceptionally heinous crimes while maintaining strict procedural safeguards.

Contemporary Challenges

Even though the death sentence is constitutional in India, it confronts enormous problems with the way it is carried out and the system as a whole. Project 39A says that 539 people were on death row, which is the most in the last 20 years. This shows how much harder it is for the judicial system to handle and how long death row inmates have to wait for their fate.
Recent real-world studies show worrying tendencies in how the death sentence is used. In 2024, trial courts only partially followed the rules in four out of 66 cases, asking for prison conduct reports only. This shows that many people did not follow the rules that were already in place to protect the rights of the accused. There are big doubts regarding how well judicial rules are working to make sure that capital punishment is applied fairly and consistently because of this disparity in implementation.

The Law Commission of India has extensively examined the death penalty question. The Law Commission of India stressed on the reasoning that the conditions in India demands the contrary position to the proposition of ‘abolition of death penalty’ and concluded the death penalty should be retained. It said that the variety of upbringing, the diversity of the population, the social conditions require maintaining capital punishment as a deterrent measure.

Global Trends and International Perspectives

In the last few decades, the international environment for death punishment has changed a lot, with a clear trend toward abolition. Kazakhstan and Papua New Guinea are two recent instances of countries that have gotten rid of the death penalty. This shows that there is a global trend away from capital punishment. India is becoming more and more alone as a country that wants to keep the death penalty, even though there is a strong international campaign to get rid of it.
Recent global statistics show a serious contradiction in the patterns of the death penalty. Fewer countries still have the death penalty, yet the number of executions has gone up a lot. In 2024, we counted more over 1500 killings in 15 countries. This is the most Amnesty International has ever counted since 2015. Even if the tendency around the world is to cease executions, the total number of known executions around the world went up for the third year in a row, with Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq leading the way.
The fact that executions happen in a small number of places around the world shows how isolated retentionist policies are. China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Yemen had the most executions in 2024, in that order. This concentration of authoritarian regimes and nations with dubious human rights records prompts significant inquiries regarding the alignment of capital punishment with democratic principles and the safeguarding of human rights.
Recent trends in the abolition of the death penalty show that countries are moving away from it more quickly. Equatorial Guinea got rid of it for civilian offenses in 2022, Ghana did the same in 2023, and Zimbabwe did the same in 2024. These changes show that more and more people around the world agree that death punishment has disadvantages, including as being irreversible, having the possibility of judicial error, and being applied unfairly.

Human Rights Implications and Ethical Considerations

The continued existence of capital punishment in India presents profound human rights issues that transcend constitutional legitimacy, addressing essential matters of human dignity and state sovereignty. International human rights documents, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, are increasingly acknowledging the movement towards abolition as indicative of an advanced comprehension of human rights protection.

The fact that capital punishment cannot be undone raises special concerns about mistakes made by judges and flaws in the legal process. The potential of wrongful execution is still a big worry because of the problems with following the rules and the difficulty of running the criminal justice system. The lengthy appeals procedure, although it protects against quick execution, raises its own humanitarian issues related to the death row phenomenon and psychological torture.

Moreover, empirical studies continually reveal the ineffectiveness of capital punishment as a deterrent, undermining one of the principal rationales for its continuation. The ongoing application of death sentences, devoid of accompanying deterrent advantages, prompts inquiries on the proportionality and necessity of such extreme punishment within a constitutional system that prioritizes rehabilitation and reformative justice.

Recommendations and Future Directions

The changing landscape of death penalty law in India points to a number of possible paths for future growth. First, better procedural protections and training for trial courts could fill in the gaps in present implementation and make sure that set rules are followed more consistently. The establishment of specialized death penalty tribunals equipped with augmented resources and competence may enhance the quality of capital case adjudication.

Second, thorough empirical study investigating the deterrent effect of capital punishment within the Indian context should guide evidence-based policy formulation. Such study should investigate crime rates, recidivism trends, and conduct comparative analyses with jurisdictions that do not employ capital punishment to evaluate the practical efficacy of retaining the death sentence.

Third, looking into other options, including life in jail without the chance of parole, could ensure public safety in the same way while also addressing concerns about irreversibility. Such approaches would preserve the gravity of punishment for egregious offenses while facilitating the rectification of possible judicial errors.

Finally, more public discussion and education on the effects of the death sentence could help people in India make democratic decisions about its future. This discussion should include families of victims, lawyers, human rights activists, and people from all walks of life to make sure that all points of view are taken into account.

Conclusion

The death sentence in India holds a complex constitutional and legal position, affirmed by court interpretation yet increasingly challenged by rising human rights consciousness and practical implementation problems. The Supreme Court has always affirmed the constitutionality of the death penalty, but the “rarest of rare” doctrine and stricter procedural protections have made its use more limited.

Global trends show that most countries are moving toward abolition. More than 70% of countries have done away with death punishment, which puts India in a group of countries that still have it. The prevalence of executions in authoritarian regimes prompts significant inquiries on the alignment of capital punishment with democratic principles and the safeguarding of human rights.

Current issues with the death penalty, such as not following the rules and more people on death row, show that there are problems with the system that make it hard to make sure that it is applied fairly and consistently. These implementation shortcomings, along with worries about the absence of a deterrent effect and the fact that capital punishment can’t be undone, make the case stronger for rethinking the use of capital punishment.

The constitutional structure allows for the death penalty, but it does not have to stay in place. The changing understanding of basic rights, especially the right to life and dignity under Article 21, leaves room for future courts to look again at the constitutionality of the death penalty. As Indian law continues to change, the balance between punishment and protecting human rights will probably tilt more toward rehabilitation and reformative techniques.

India is at a very important point in the history of the death sentence, where constitutional legality meets problems with putting it into practice and a growing awareness of human rights. To make sure that the criminal justice system meets both public safety needs and the need to preserve human rights and dignity, we need to carefully think about empirical facts, worldwide trends, and basic constitutional ideals.

References

1. Amnesty International. (2025). Global Report: Death Sentences and Executions 2024. Amnesty International USA.; Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898.; Constitutional Validity of Death Penalty or Capital Punishment in India. (2025). Law Bhoomi. Retrieved from https://lawbhoomi.com/constitutional-validity-of-death-penalty-or-capital-punishment-in-india/; Death Penalty Information Centre. (2024). The Death Penalty in 2024: International. Retrieved from https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/research/analysis/reports/year-end-reports/the-death-penalty-in-2024/international; Jagmohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 947.
2. Law Commission of India. Report on Capital Punishment. Government of India.; Menon, A. (2023). Contours of Justice: Human Rights and Constitutionality of Capital Punishment in India. SPRF.; Oxford Law Blogs. (2025). Death penalty sentencing in India: The futility of introducing safeguards for an inhuman punishment. Retrieved from https://blogs.law.ox.ac.uk/death-penalty-research-unit-blog/; Project 39A, National Law University Delhi. Death Penalty in India: Annual Statistics Report.

3. Supreme Court Observer. (2024). How Justice Bhagwati’s 44-year-old dissent mirrors the state of death penalty in India. Retrieved from https://www.scobserver.in/; World Coalition Against the Death Penalty. (2024). A decrease in the number of countries with the death penalty worldwide, despite an increase in executions. Retrieved from https://worldcoalition.org/; World Population Review. (2025). Countries with Death Penalty 2025. Retrieved from https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-with-death-penalty