DEATH PENALTY IN INDIA: JUDICIAL TRENDS AND HUMAN RIGHTS CONCERNS

ABSTRACT

In India, the death penalty has been a subject of significant legal and ethical debate along with judicial trends evolving over time. The current article is an examination of application of capital punishment in India, highlighting the key judicial trends and the influence left by landmark rulings by the Supreme Court of India. It delves into exploring the shift towards a more restrictive approach, with an emphasis on limiting the death penalty to “rarest of rare” cases which was established in the case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980). The article is also an analysis of human rights concerns which focuses on issues such as potential wrongful convictions, disproportionate impact on marginalized communities and the lack of consistency in sentencing. In spite of calls from human rights organizations for the abolition of said punishment, the death penalty remains lawful. This raises ongoing concerns regarding its compatibility with India’s human rights obligations. By exploring the tension between judicial practices and human rights, this article aims to throw light on the complexities surrounding the death penalty and its future in the Indian legal system. 

Keywords: death penalty, rarest of rare, punishment, concerns, human rights

INTRODUCTION

With growing concerns and perpetual debate with regards to its fairness and human right implications, the death penalty in India has been a true subject of significant debate. The Indian judiciary has adopted a yet restrictive approach to capital punishment in response to these concerns which is called “rarest of rare doctrine” to be precise. As established by the Supreme Court, this principle limits the use of death penalty to only those individuals which involve exceptional circumstances where the crime is so grave and heinous that it shocks the conscience of the society as a whole. The death penalty remains legal despite all such concerns and its application continue to raise issues and shortcomings related to wrongful convictions, socioeconomic disparities and most important is the prolonged psychological effects on those awaiting execution. This particular article delves into the complexities which surround the death penalty in India and examines its evolving application, its ethical dilemmas and the challenges it poses to the country’s human rights commitments. 

HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF DEATH PENALTY IN INDIA

In ancient India, the concept of punishment was concisely interwoven with maintenance of the social order and common justice. Early hints of the capital punishment appear in the ancient Hindu texts such as the Dharmashastras and the Arthashastra. These texts prescribed the death penalty for grievous crimes, including murder and treason which shall act as a necessary measure to protect societal harmony. The Manusmriti which is one of the earliest religious texts relating to legal provisions or social law, emphasized the role of severe punishments in order to ensure the stability of society. 

In the medieval period, the legal system retained a similar approach with Hindu law which prescribed death penalty for grave crimes. The Arthashastra by Kautilya, a key text of this very era, reserved capital punishment for severe offenses like espionage, murder, and high treason. 

With the arrival of British Imperial rule, India’s legal system had to undergo significant changes. The induction of English common law and the enactment of the Indian Penal Code in 1860 marked a stark shift in the legal framework. This statute codified the death penalty for various offenses which include murder, waging war against the state, and treason. 

After the independence of India in 1947, the freshly established republic democratic of India inherited the colonial legal system which also includes the IPC. Although the Indian Constitution of 1950 assured the right to life under Article 21, the death penalty still remains as a punishment and was not abolished, leaving its application to be only determined by the judiciary as and when required or as it deems fit. 

INSTANCES OF PAST EXECUTIONS IN INDIA

In India, the death penalty has been executed at a very low rate with only a few executions in recent decades. Many death sentences remain unexecuted despite numerous decrees. A vital case was the case of execution of four convicts in Nirbhaya gang rape and murder case of 2012, Mukesh Singh, Vinay Sharma, Pawan Gupta, and Akshay Thakur on March 20, 2020. Since the year 2004, this was the first ever execution and with this only eight executions have taken place in India since 2000. This was the result despite many death sentences being handed out during the given period. Around 1500 death sentences were issued between 2004 and 2015 but only a few convicts were executed. Some significant instances are enlisted below:

1. Dhananjay Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal^[1]

Dhananjay Chatterjee was convicted for rape and murder of Hetal Parekh in 1990, who was just 18 years old. Chatterjee worked as a security guard in the victim’s apartment and killed her there itself. His appeals and mercy petitions were rejected and he was arrested and awarded death penalty in the year 1991. The convict was executed on his 39^th birthday in 2004 at Kolkata’s Alipore Central Jail, which marked the first execution in over a decade. 

2. Mohammed Ajmal Amir Kasab v. State of Maharastra^[2]

Kasab was one of the attackers involved in the infamous 26/11 Mumbai attacks, killing 166 people. He was sentenced to death in 2010 after being arrested. His repeated petitions for mercy and several other appeals were rejected by the Supreme Court and it upheld his sentence in 2011.

He was executed in 2012 in Pune’s Yerwada jail. 

3. State v. Mohd. Afzal and Ors^[3].   

Afzal Guru was convicted for his role in the 2001 Indian Parliament attack where 9 people in total were killed. Arrested in December 2001, he was awarded death sentence in the year 2005. He was executed in 2013 in Delhi’s Tihar Jail. In Kashmir, his execution enraged the community people and caused significant protests among them. 

4. Yakub Memon v. State of Maharastra^[4], (2015) 13 S.C.C. 215.

Memon was convicted for his indulgence in the 1993 Bombay bombings where 257 people got killed. He was arrested in the year 1994 and his sentence of death penalty was upheld by the Supreme Court. Despite numerous appeals and a mercy petition, Memon was executed in 2015 at Nagpur Central Jail. 

5. The latest execution: Pranay Perumalla Honor Killing Case^[5], (2025), Criminal Appeal No. 1123 of 2025, Nalgonda SC and St Sessions Court.

The very recent execution in India of Subhash Sarma occurred on 10^th of March, 2025, who was convicted for the murder of Pranay Perumalla. For his honor killing of Pranay, Sarma received death sentence through a court decree by Nalgonda SC  and ST Sessions court on 24^th February, 2025. Consequently, Sarma was held liable of murder and criminal conspiracy and his execution took place quite shortly after his death decree was passed. 

HUMAN RIGHTS CONCERNS

Serious human rights concerns were raised by the continued use of the death penalty, as the country has failed to fulfill its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights.  Recent legislative efforts have sought to expand have moved towards expanding the scope of death-eligible offenses including the offenses that do not have any hint of intentional killing, instead of moving towards its abolition. As of 31 December 2023, a total of 561 people were living under a sentence of death. In 2022, 15 women were on death row and since 2016, trial courts have been sentencing an average of 123 people to death each year^[6]. Over the years, however, appellate courts have become increasingly more reluctant to confirm these death sentences. The Supreme Court has, in several instances, either acquitted the convict or reduced he capital punishment to just life imprisonment, in an attempt to overturn the death sentences. 

Significant alarms like fair trial violations in determining guilt and during sentencing are highlighted by this trend. The Supreme Court recognized the loopholes in India’s death penalty sentencing framework which unequivocally calls for a establishment of a Constitution Bench to address these issues in the year 2022. Still, such a bench is yet to be formed. The trial courts continue to pronounce death sentences despite such initiatives by the Supreme Court. 

Furthermore, the socio-economic profile of the people on death row is truly a major concern because the penalty disproportionately affects individuals from the marginalized communities. The need for compensation and rehabilitation for those who are not fairly sentenced to death is signaled by such disparity. In addition to that, the women who are charged with severe capital punishments face particular forms of discrimination in the application of the death sentence or death penalty. 

The individuals who are sentenced to death are often subjected to inhumane conditions for which the psychological toll of prolonged death row confinement also raises alarming concerns. There is a strong argument for India to fully abolish it due to many concerns regarding fairness in the application of the death penalty. At the same time, it is quintessential for India to place formal moratorium on the death penalty to protect human rights and ensure justice. 

CHALLENGES TO DEATH PENALTY

Out of many, one of the major loopholes in the sentencing of death penalty in India has to be the long delays faced by death row prisoners which often use to span over years or even decades. In this crucial period of imprisonment, they are subjected to poor prison conditions which lead to several mental and emotional health issues. Many prisoners resort to suicide due to unbearable conditions, particularly those belonging to marginalized communities as they experience extreme psychological distress. Such delays along with harsh conditions undermine the fairness of the death penalty which stands as a straight violation of basic human rights. 

CONCLUSION

Crucial concerns about fairness, application of justice and human rights are raised by the use of the death penalty. Trial courts continue to impose them which is often influenced by socioeconomic disparities despite a growing reluctance from appellate courts to uphold death sentences. Women and marginalized communities are disproportionately affected and they often face discrimination during trials too. The inhumane nature of capital punishment is often highlighted by the prolonged days, poor prison conditions and mental health conditions. It makes a compelling case for abolishing the death penalty in India when these issues are coupled with psychological toll of awaiting execution. In the interim, to address these systemic issues and safeguard human dignity, a formal moratorium should be enforced. 

REFERENCES

1. ForumIAS Blog, Issues with the Death Sentence in India (2024), ForumIAS, https://forumias.com/blog/issues–with–the–death–sentence–inindia/#:~:text=Many%20prisoners%20on%20death%20row,suicide%20due%20to%2 0harsh%20conditions accessed Mar. 13, 2025.
2. Death Penalty Information Center, Sentencing Alternatives (2025), Death Penalty Info, https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy–issues/policy/sentencing–alternatives accessed Mar. 13, 2025.
3. The Advocates for Human Rights, International Submissions (2024), The Advocates for Human Rights, https://www.theadvocatesforhumanrights.org/International_Submissions/A/Index?id= 497 accessed Mar. 13, 2025.
4. iPleaders, Capital Punishment in India (2022), iPleaders, https://blog.ipleaders.in/capital–punishment–in–india–2/#Why_the_death_penalty_still_prevails_in_India accessed Mar. 13, 2025.
5. Law Bhoomi, History of Capital Punishment in India (2024), Law Bhoomi, https://lawbhoomi.com/history–of–capital–punishment–inindia/#:~:text=During%20the%20British%20era%2C%20capital,in%20the%20Indian %20independence%20movement accessed Mar. 13, 2025.
6. Dhananjay Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal¹, (2004) 2 S.C.C 220.
7. Mohammed Ajmal Amir Kasab v. State of Maharastra², (2012) 9 S.C.C. 1.
8. State v. Mohd. Afzal and Ors³., (2013) 9 S.C.C. 46.
9. Yakub Memon v. State of Maharastra⁴, (2015) 13 S.C.C. 215.
10. (2025), Criminal Appeal No. 1123 of 2025, Nalgonda SC and St Sessions Court.
11. The Advocates for Human Rights, International Submissions: A, https://www.theadvocatesforhumanrights.org/International_Submissions/A/Index?id=497(last visited Mar. 13, 2025).