Death Penalty in India: Constitutional Validity and Global Trends

Introduction

The death penalty holds a complex position within Indian constitutional law. Following the landmark decision in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court of India has maintained that the death penalty is constitutionally permissible, but has also placed strict limits on its application through legal safeguards such as the “rarest of the rare” standard and procedural rules. While global trends suggest a gradual move toward the abolition or reduction of capital punishment, a small number of countries account for most of the executions. This article explores four key areas: –

1. The constitutional framework and Indian judicial decisions shaping capital punishment;
2. Statutory and procedural protections in sentencing; 
3. Rising legal concerns such as delay, mental illness, and arbitrariness;
4. The international context and global trends relevant to India’s legal and policy landscape.

Constitutional Validity: Article 21 and the Judicial Response

The central constitutional issue is whether the death penalty, which involves sentencing someone  to death,  violates the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. In Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty does not automatically violate Article 21. Instead of declaring capital punishment unconstitutional, the Court reconciled the legal allowance  of  death  with  Article 21 by establishing a limiting principle; the death penalty may be imposed only in the “rarest of the rare”  cases where the alternative of life imprisonment is unequivocally ruled out due to the severity, nature, or motive behind the crime. This approach preserves Parliament’s power to prescribe capital punishment while  entrusting the judiciary with a heightened duty to control its application.

Bachan Singh established two interlinked principles: –

(a) capital punishment is theoretically permissible,

(b) its imposition requires an individualized, non-standardized evaluation of the offender’s culpability and mitigating circumstances, reserving it for only the most exceptional cases.

The Court emphasized that sentencing must avoid mechanical application and should consider the offender’s age, background, mental condition, and potential for reform.

Development and Application of “Rarest of the Rare”

After Bachan Singh, the Supreme Court has consistently refined and applied the “rarest of the rare” doctrine.
The case of Macchi Singh v. State of Punjab is a notable example, in which the Court reaffirmed the doctrine’s essence by applying aggravating and mitigating factors to uphold death sentences in a particularly brutal, multiple-murder scenario. The Court treated the rarest inquiry as a fact-specific process, where factors such as premeditation, number of victims, the vulnerability of victims, the manner and motive of the crime, and the brutality of the offense strongly favored the death penalty. Conversely, factors like youth, provocation, mental abnormality or the potential for reform supported life imprisonment.

The Court’s analytical approach involves two parts: (1) examining the offense’s brutality and circumstances (objective aggravating factors), and (2) evaluating the offender’s personal circumstances (subjective mitigating factors).

Death should be imposed only when the objective factors are so severe that they eliminate any weight of mitigating influences.

Sentencing Procedure and Statutory Framework

Legally, the primary provision authorizing death for murder is Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which prescribes that “whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.” Procedurally, the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) mandates that, upon conviction, the court must hear the accused regarding the sentence — a “pre-sentence hearing” — before imposing punishment. Section 235(2) of the CrPC delineates a two-step process (conviction followed by sentencing) and provides an opportunity to present mitigating evidence before the court. The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized the importance of this pre-sentence phase as a critical safeguard against arbitrary imposition of the death penalty.

Recent Jurisprudential Concerns: Delay, Mental Illness, and Arbitrariness

Three main concerns have dominated recent constitutional litigation and scholarly discussion:

(1) the impact of prolonged delays between conviction and execution; 

(2) the status of mentally ill or intellectually disabled prisoners;

(3) the risk of arbitrary, discriminatory, or inconsistent sentencing.

(A) Delay and the “Inhuman” Effect of Prolonged Waiting
A significant development is Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014), in which the Supreme Court held that an “undue, inordinate and unreasonable” delay in deciding mercy petitions or carrying out death sentences may lead to mantal delay in deciding mercy petitions  or carrying out death sentences may lead to mental deterioration and amount to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, violating Article 21. The Court recognized that delay itself can transform a legal sentence into one that offends human dignity. As a result, the Court allowed commutation to life imprisonment in cases where delay and its effects on mental health rendered the execution unconstitutional. This ruling introduced a proportionality- like review, recognizing procedural delays and their consequences and relevant constitutional factors in sentencing.
(B) Mental Illness and Intellectual Disability
The Supreme Court has consistently held that executing individuals with mental illness is incompatible with the principle of human dignity. Courts have become increasingly attentive to medical evidence particularly the causal link between incarceration-related delays and the deterioration of mental health. When a prisoner suffers from severe mental illness to the extent that they cannot comprehend the punishment, execution is regarded as constitutionally impermissible. Following Shatrughan Chauhan, multiple High Courts and the Supreme Court have commuted death sentences in such situations.
(C) Arbitrariness and Discriminatory Application
A persistent critique is that the death penalty is applied unequally, often disproportionately impacting marginalized groups. The Indian constitutional commitment to equality and due process means that arbitrariness in sentencing can invite judicial intervention. While the “rarest of the rare” standard was intended to reduce such arbitrariness, critics argue that it remains indeterminate in practice, leading to inconsistent sentencing outcomes across different courts and judges.

The International Context and Global Trends

While India’s legal system has tried to keep capital punishment but with strict limits, the world has changed a lot in Favor of abolishing or limiting it.
(A) Global Movement Toward Abolition
By late 2024, more than one hundred countries had either abolished the death penalty in law or in practice. International groups and human rights organizations are putting more pressure on countries that still use it. For those who have abolished it, the main reasons include respecting human dignity, the lack of clear proof that the death penalty is more effective at preventing crime than long prison sentences, and the fact that the penalty is irreversible if there’s a judicial mistake.
(B) Concentration of Executions among Few States
Looking at global statistics, it’s clear that executions are mostly carried out by a small number of countries. In 2024, according to Amnesty International, there was a big increase in recorded executions, driven largely by a few countries. At the same time, the number of carrying out executions reached a low in history. This contrast many countries not executing people while a few are doing it more is making it harder to reach a global agreement on abolition.
(C) Recent Abolitionist Developments
Some countries that used to keep the death penalty have now moved to abolish or restrict it, often by commuting sentences or clearing death rows through new laws or executive decisions. These changes are important for India because they show possible alternatives like life imprisonment, restorative justice, or sentencing reforms, and they support international human rights norms that favour abolishing the death penalty.

Assessment: India’s Position in Comparative Perspective

India is in the middle of the spectrum when it comes to the death penalty. It is a constitutional democracy where the judiciary has worked hard to control how the government can use capital punishment, by setting up strong legal protections. The Bachan Singh ruling, which said that he death penalty should be used only in the “rarest of the rare” cases, created a layered legal framework that addresses many, but not all, of the concerns. The later ruling in Shatrughan Chauhan showed a growing awareness of human rights issues that come up after a conviction.

However, there are still several challenges:

• Indeterminacy and Inconsistency: – The “rarest of the rare” standard is based on individual facts and can lead to different outcomes in different courts. This creates unpredictability and leads to criticism about unfairness. 
• Delay and Systemic Backlogs: – Delays in the justice system, especially after a conviction, in reviewing cases, and in scheduling executions can make a lawful sentence unconstitutional. Relying on case-by-case commutations isn’t a full solution to this.
• Social Disparities: – There are concerns that poor, marginalized, or underrepresented individuals are more likely to receive death sentences.
• International Pressure and Moral Climate: – Global trends and human rights norms are pushing against the use of the death penalty, and countries that have abolished it offer models that India could consider for its own policy discussions.
• Policy Options and Reform Proposals: – Statutory Narrowing or Abolition. Parliament could pass laws to limit the number of crimes that carry the death penalty, or abolish it entirely, replacing it with long-term imprisonment or other strict sentences.
• Procedural Safeguards: – Improve the process before sentencing, like setting minimum standards for pre-sentence hearings, requiring expert psychiatric evaluations when there are signs of mental illness, and setting strict timelines for mercy petitions and appeals.
• Data Transparency and Review: – Create an independent body or a central database to collect information on death penalty cases, including the socio-economic backgrounds of those sentenced, and the outcomes in appeals, to help guide more informed reforms.
• Uniform Sentencing Guidelines: – Develop detailed guidance or court precedents that help judges more consistently consider aggravating and mitigating factors, reducing the differences in sentencing between courts.
• Rehabilitation and Post-Release Mechanisms: – For those who are sentenced to life without the death penalty, create programs that help them reintegrate into society, ensuring public safety while showing respect for human dignity.

Conclusion

India’s legal approach to the death penalty shows a careful, sometimes uneasy, balance. The Supreme Court has ruled that the death penalty is constitutional, but it has also set strict limitations on its use. Landmark cases like Bachan Singh and Macchi Singh introduced the “rarest of the rare” standard, while Shatrughan Chauhan added considerations for delays and mental health. Around the world, the growing trend toward abolishing the death penalty, along with the fact that most executions are carried out by a small number of countries, present important legal and practical considerations for India. The future choices for India whether to keep and refine a limited use of the death penalty or move toward abolishing it are political and moral decisions that belong to the Parliament and the people. The courts, limited by existing legal principles, will continue to enforce constitutional rules when legislative or executive action doesn’t keep up.

References

1. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 S.C.C. 684 (India). See judgment on constitutional validity of death penalty and “rarest of the rare” doctrine. Indian Kanoon
2. Macchi Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 957 (India). (Supreme Court application of “rarest of the rare”.) Indian Kanoon
3. Shatrughan Chauhan & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., (2014) 3 S.C.C. 1 (India). (Delay, mental illness and Article 21). Indian Kanoon
4. Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 302 (Punishment for murder). Indian Kanoon
5. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, § 235(2) (Pre-sentence hearing / bifurcated trial). Indian Kanoon
6. Amnesty International, Death Sentences and Executions 2024 (Annual Report — covering January–December 2024; published Apr. 2025) (reporting worldwide trends, number of executions and abolitionist statistics). Amnesty International
7. Amnesty Int’l and related news coverage on global execution trends and country-level developments (e.g., Guardian, AP reporting on 2024 statistics and concentration of executions). The Guardian
8. Selected scholarly articles and case commentaries summarizing Bachan Singh, Macchi Singh, and Shatrughan Chauhan (see Lawctopus, Law Bhoomi, and legal PDFs for case texts and commentary). iPleaders+LawBhoomi