Death Penalty in India: Judicial trends and human rights concerns

Abstract

This paper examines the complex debate surrounding the death penalty in India, tracing its historical context, landmark judgments, and constitutional provisions. The discussion weighs the perspectives of abolitionists and retentionists, considering international viewpoints and the need for effective deterrents amidst rising crime rates. The death penalty has been a part of India’s history, serving as a deterrent for grave crimes. However, its validity is contested, with some advocating for abolition due to humanitarian concerns. This paper examines the death penalty’s history, landmark judgments, and constitutional provisions in India. 

Key Words – Death penalty, Abolish, Punishment, Supreme Court, Cases, Deterrence Effect, Human rights, Heinous crime.

Introduction

These days death penalty, a highly debated topic, is the state’s legal execution of an individual as punishment for a crime, aiming to protect society from unreformed offenders[1]. It is believed to have a deterrent effect, as the fear of capital punishment discourages criminal behavior. The President and Governor have the authority to pardon or suspend death sentences, typically imposed for severe crimes like murder and robbery with murder. The death penalty’s constitutional validity is recognized only in the rarest of rare cases, with India adhering firmly to this principle, As of 2024, 144 countries have abolished the death penalty in law or practice. This includes countries that have abolished the death penalty for all crimes, and countries that have not executed anyone in a decade[2]. The state addresses crime through punishment, treatment of offenders, and crime prevention by manipulating contributing factors. Different punishment theories exist globally, and in India, capital punishment is prescribed for severe crimes under our legislation[3]. The 262nd Law Commission report marked a significant shift in Indian death penalty jurisprudence by suggesting revisions and limiting the death penalty to terrorism cases. While some argue it should only apply to the most egregious offenses, human rights advocates assert it violates basic human rights[4]. The implementation of the death penalty raises human rights concerns, sparking a debate between retentionists and abolitionists. While some argue it’s an effective deterrent, others consider it cruel and inhumane. India’s stance is complex, upholding both retributive and deterrence justice theories. Understanding the death penalty in India requires analyzing its history, laws, landmark cases, and ongoing debates, considering both perspectives[5].

Background Study

The death penalty has been an integral part of India’s legal system since ancient times, serving as the ultimate form of punishment for the most heinous crimes. Historically, it was perceived as a necessary tool for maintaining law and order, deterring crime, and delivering justice[6]. The death penalty in India has faced significant scrutiny and criticism. Human rights organizations, including Amnesty International, have condemned it as a cruel and inhumane practice, advocating for its abolition. Since 2000, approximately 2,500 death penalties have been granted, with notable executions including the four convicts in the Nirbhaya rape case[7]. Understanding the death penalty in India involves examining its historical context, legal framework, notable cases, and the broader societal and human rights implications. This comprehensive analysis helps in assessing the relevance and impact of capital punishment in contemporary India.

The crimes under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023 that may result in the death penalty[8].

1. Rape resulting in death or persistent vegetative state (Section 66 BNS) – Minimum 20 years’ imprisonment, up to life imprisonment or death penalty.
2. Gang rape of a minor (Section 70(2) BNS) – Life imprisonment or death penalty, plus fine to cover victim’s medical and rehabilitation costs.

• Serial offenders of rape (Section 71 BNS) – Life imprisonment or death penalty for repeat offenders.

1. Murder (Section 103 BNS) – Death penalty or life imprisonment, plus fine.
2. Murder by a life convict (Section 104 BNS) – Death penalty or life imprisonment.
3. Abetting the suicide of a minor, an insane person, or someone under the influence of drugs (Section 107 BNS) – Death penalty or life imprisonment.

• Attempted murder by a life convict causing injury (Section 109(2) BNS) – Death penalty or life imprisonment if causing harm.
• Terrorist activities causing death (Section 113(2)(a) BNS) – Death penalty or life imprisonment, plus fine.

1. Kidnapping or abduction with intent to murder or for ransom (Section 140(2) BNS) – Death penalty or life imprisonment, plus fine.
2. Waging war against the Government of India (Section 147 BNS) – Death penalty or life imprisonment, plus fine.
3. Abetting a mutiny (Section 160 BNS) – Death penalty or life imprisonment if mutiny occurs, plus fine.

• Providing or fabricating false evidence resulting in an innocent person’s death (Section 230(2) BNS) – Death penalty.
• Dacoity resulting in murder (Section 310(3) BNS) – Death penalty, life imprisonment, or minimum 10 years rigorous imprisonment, plus fine.

Judicial Trends: A Trend Towards Leniency?

Judicial opinions and advocacy support replacing capital punishment with life imprisonment, citing it as a more humane and ethical alternative as evident in landmark cases such as – 

2024. Kerry Max Cook’s[9] was wrongfully convicted in 1977 for the murder of Linda Jo Edwards in Tyler, Texas. His case became infamous due to police and prosecutorial misconduct, including false testimony, fabricated forensic evidence, and attempts to portray Cook as a sexual deviant. Despite DNA evidence identifying the real killer, prosecutors continued to deny Cook’s innocence. Cook spent 20 years on death row, enduring severe abuse. The case officially ended on July 31, 2024. Alarmingly, some courts now argue that executions can proceed even when there are substantial doubts about the defendant’s guilt.

1. One more case of, Dhananjoy Chatterjee[10] is often cited in discussions about the death penalty and wrongful convictions in India. Chatterjee was executed in 2004 for the rape and murder of a schoolgirl, but there have been debates about the fairness of his trial and the evidence used against him. The case highlighted flaws in India’s justice system, particularly in capital punishment cases.
2. The case of Jagmohan Singh vs The State of Uttar Pradesh (1972)[11] underscores the ethical and constitutional challenges associated with the death penalty, emphasizing the need for a more humane and just alternative, such as life imprisonment.
3. In the case of Bhagwani v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022)[12], the appellant was initially sentenced to death for the brutal rape and murder of an 11-year-old girl. However, due to his good behavior in jail and lack of prior criminal record, the Supreme Court commuted his death sentence to 30 years of life imprisonment without remission. The Court acknowledged his potential for rehabilitation, considering his status as a manual laborer from a Scheduled Tribes community and the absence of evidence against his rehabilitation prospects. This decision highlighted the importance of rehabilitation while recognizing the severity of his crime.
4. In the case of Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra (2009)[13], the Supreme Court of India commuted Bariyar’s death sentence to life imprisonment. Bariyar was initially sentenced to death for kidnapping and murdering a man for ransom. However, the Supreme Court emphasized the need for a more humane approach to justice and highlighted the global trend towards abolishing the death penalty. The Court considered mitigating factors and the potential for rehabilitation, ultimately deciding to replace the death penalty with life imprisonment. This decision reflects the evolving legal and ethical standards that prioritize human rights and the possibility of redemption.
5. In the case of Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014)[14], the prolonged delay in executing death sentences caused significant mental and physical agony to the convicts. The Supreme Court recognized these delays as cruel and inhumane, violating Article 21[15] of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The prolonged legal process and anticipation of execution caused immense emotional strain and trauma for both the victim’s and the accused’s families. By commuting the death sentences to life imprisonment, the Court aimed to provide a more humane and compassionate approach to justice, allowing families to process their grief and pain without the constant upheaval associated with the death penalty.
6. The case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab[16] supports the argument for replacing capital punishment with life imprisonment by emphasizing the evolving societal values and ethical standards that prioritize human rights and the potential for rehabilitation. The judgment reflects a more humane and just approach to sentencing, aligning with contemporary legal and ethical standards.

Human Rights Concerns: An Ongoing Debate

Despite the judiciary’s efforts to limit the application of the death penalty, human rights concerns remain. The following issues highlight the ongoing challenges –

1. Risk of Wrongful Execution: Innocent people may be wrongly convicted, and the death penalty is irreversible. The increasing risk of wrongful executions in the criminal justice system is deeply concerning. These exonerations often resulted from advancements in scientific techniques, investigative journalism, and the efforts of specialized attorneys, rather than through the standard appeals process. Unfortunately, such resources are often beyond the reach of the average death-row inmate[17].
2. Moral and Ethical Concerns: Moral and ethical concerns surrounding capital punishment argue in favor of replacing it with life imprisonment. Executing an innocent person is a grave moral issue, and wrongful convictions are a harsh reality. The death penalty violates the fundamental human right to life and is often viewed as cruel and unusual. Furthermore, research shows it is no more effective at deterring crime than life imprisonment, and its application is often discriminatory. In contrast, life imprisonment offers opportunities for rehabilitation and redemption, aligning with values of compassion, forgiveness, and humanity[18].
3. Quality of Legal Representation: The quality of legal representation is essential for ensuring a fair trial, The quality of legal representation is a significant concern in death penalty cases. Many defendants on death row cannot afford adequate legal representation, leading to unjust trials. Court-appointed attorneys often lack the necessary resources, experience, and motivation to provide a strong defense. This creates a significant imbalance in the quality of legal defense, increasing the risk of wrongful convictions. Furthermore, the death penalty disproportionately affects marginalized communities, exacerbating systemic inequalities[19].
4. Prolonged Delays in Executing deaths: Prolonged delays in carrying out death sentences cause severe mental and emotional stress for convicts, leading to psychological problems and worsening mental health, known as “death row syndrome”. This uncertainty also burdens families of both victims and accused, extending trauma and making closure difficult. Replacing death sentences with life imprisonment can reduce these impacts, offering a more humane approach while still providing a substantial and rehabilitative sentence[20].
5. Restorative justice : Restorative justice focuses on repairing harm caused by crime, rather than just punishing offenders. Life imprisonment aligns with this approach by allowing offenders to take responsibility, make amends, and participate in rehabilitation programs. This process prioritizes victims’ needs, provides a voice, and promotes healing. By involving the community, restorative justice fosters collective responsibility and solidarity, aiming to reduce recidivism and create a safer society. Life imprisonment supports values of compassion, forgiveness, and redemption, contributing to a more just and humane justice system[21]. 

Conclusion

In conclusion, the death penalty in India remains a contentious issue, marked by significant human rights concerns despite its limited and cautious application. Recent judicial trends demonstrate a shift towards greater scrutiny and restraint in imposing capital punishment, reflecting a growing acknowledgment of its irreversibility and unreliability. However, persistent concerns regarding arbitrariness, bias, and the risk of wrongful convictions continue to undermine the integrity of the capital punishment system. The lack of transparency and accountability within the criminal justice system exacerbates these issues, highlighting the need for comprehensive reform. Ultimately, a nuanced and multidisciplinary reevaluation of the death penalty’s efficacy, morality, and constitutional validity is necessary to ensure that India’s justice system upholds the principles of human rights, justice, and dignity. This reexamination should prioritize the protection of human life, the prevention of miscarriages of justice, and the promotion of restorative justice, with the aim of creating a more humane and equitable justice system

 

References

[1] Death Penalty, Should the Death Penalty Be Legal? Britannica; 2025.

https://www.britannica.com/procon/death-penalty-debate/Discussion-Questions#ref396649

[2] Facts and Figures, World Day Against the Death Penalty, 10 October 2024,Security and the Death Penalty. Worldcoalition; 2024.

https://worldcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/FactsFigures2024_EN_Final.pdf

[3] Advoctekhoj, Law library, Report no. 262.

https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/lawreports/deathpenalty/21.php?Title=Death%20Penalty&STitle=Capital%20offences%20in%20IPC

[4] Law Commission of India, Report No.262 on Death Penalty, August 2015. [Twentieth Law Commission].

https://docs.manupatra.in/newsline/articles/Upload/A23C371C-CD67-44A9-B2BC-B62BF71CDE5A.pdf

[5] Death Penalty Issues. The Advocates for Human Rights.

https://www.theadvocatesforhumanrights.org/Death_Penalty/Issues

[6] Talawar N (2022). Capital Punishment in india. Ipleaders.

https://blog.ipleaders.in/capital-punishment-in-india-2/

[7]Pavithra K M (2020). 2500 Death Penalties since the year 2000, only 4 Executions. Factly.

https://factly.in/2500-death-penalties-since-the-year-2000-only-4-executions/

[8] Wahab M I, (2025). Crimes Punishable By The Death Penalty In The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/legal/article-17885-crimes-punishable-by-the-death-penalty-in-the-bharatiya-nyaya-sanhita-2023-bns-.html               

[9] Kerry Cook Max Declared Innocent After 46 Years Of Legal Battles, (2024). Business Wire.

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20240620093374/en/Kerry-Max-Cook-Declared-Innocent-After-46-Years-of-Legal-Battles

[10] Dhananjoy Chaterjee vs State Of W.B, 1994 SCC (2) 220.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1351933/#:~:text=The%20learned%20Additional%20Sessions%20Judge,he%20was%20sentenced%20to%20undergo

[11] Jagmohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1973 AIR 947

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1837051/

[12] Bhagwani vs The State of Madhya Pradesh 2022 Criminal Appeal Nos. 101-102.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/18289604/

[13] Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar vs State Of Maharashtra 2009 Criminal Appeal Nos. 1478 of 2005.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1312651/

[14] Shatrughan Chauhan & Anr vs Union of India & Ors 2014 Criminal Appeal Nos. 55 of 2013.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/59968841/

[15] Article 21 of the Constitution of India protects the right to life and personal liberty. It states that no person can be deprived of their life or liberty except as per the procedure established by law.

[16] Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1980 SC 898.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1235094/

[17] Innocence and the Death Penalty, (2024). Innocenceproject.

https://innocenceproject.org/innocence-and-the-death-penalty/

[18] Capital Punishment: A Controversial and Ethical Issue, (2024). Fastercapital

https://fastercapital.com/content/Capital-Punishment–A-Controversial-and-Ethical-Issue.html

[19] Stull B (2010). Good and Bad Lawyers Determine Who Lives and Who Dies. ALCU.

https://www.aclu.org/news/smart-justice/good-and-bad-lawyers-determine-who-lives-and-who-dies#:~:text=Federal%20habeas%20corpus%20appeals%20are%20known%20as,these%20appeals%20than%20at%20the%20trial%20level

[20] Lethal Lottery: The Death Penalty in India, (2008). A study of Supreme Court judgments in death penalty cases 1950-2006. Amnesty International. 1-161.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/asa200072008eng.pdf

[21] Scholl M B and Townsend C B, (2023). Restorative justice: A humanistic paradigm for addressing the needs of victims, offenders, and communities. The Journal of Humanistic Counseling. 63(3); 184-200.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/johc.12204