Revisiting the Death Penalty Debate in India: Law, Morality & Reform

Abstract:

This paper critically examines the death penalty in India, analysing its legal framework, moral implications, and the need for reform. It explores constitutional provisions, judicial interpretations, and legislative developments concerning capital punishment. The study delves into ethical debates surrounding the death penalty, including arguments related to deterrence, human rights, and the sanctity of life. Using a doctrinal research method, this study relies on analysis of statutes, judicial decisions, scholarly articles, and official reports to examine the application and implications of the death penalty in India. Through a comprehensive review of literature and case law, the paper highlights inconsistencies and challenges in the application of the death penalty and proposes recommendations for reform, emphasizing the need for a more human oriented and  criminal justice system for the people.

Key Words: Capital punishment, death penalty, legal framework, interpretations, human rights, and comprehensive review.

Introduction:

The death penalty, or capital punishment, has been a contentious issue in India for decades. While it is constitutionally valid, its application has been inconsistent, leading to debates about its necessity and fairness. This section provides an overview of the historical context of the death penalty in India, tracing its origins from colonial times to its current status under the Indian Penal Code. It also outlines the scope of this paper, which aims to critically analyze the legal and moral dimensions of the death penalty and propose recommendations for reform.

 Legal Framework of Capital Punishment in India

• Constitutional Provisions: The Constitution of India guarantees the fundamental right to life under Article 21, subject to its deprivation by the procedure established by law. The Supreme Court has interpreted this provision to uphold the constitutionality of the death penalty when imposed according to due process. Landmark cases such as Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) affirmed this principle. The Court held that the death penalty is not unconstitutional per se but must be imposed only in the “rarest of rare” cases. This doctrine aims to ensure that capital punishment is applied sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances.
• Statutory Provisions: The Indian Penal Code prescribes the death penalty for certain offenses, including murder (Section 302), waging war against the government (Section 121), and terrorism-related offenses. The Code of Criminal Procedure outlines the procedure for imposing the death penalty, requiring a trial by a Sessions Court and confirmation by a High Court. These statutory provisions are designed to ensure that the death penalty is imposed only after a fair and thorough judicial process.
• Judicial Interpretations: The Supreme Court has played a pivotal role in shaping the application of the death penalty. In Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980), the Court upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty and introduced the ‘rarest of the rare’ doctrine to limit its use. In Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983), the Court further clarified sentencing guidelines, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach that considers both aggravating and mitigating factors. These judicial interpretations aim to ensure that the death penalty is applied fairly and consistently.

 Moral and Ethical Considerations

• Sanctity of Life: The primary moral argument against the death penalty is the sanctity of human life. State-sanctioned executions are viewed as undermining the inherent dignity of individuals and violating the fundamental right to life. Critics argue that no society should have the authority to take a life, regardless of the crime committed. This perspective aligns with the principle that human life is sacred and inviolable.
• Deterrence: Supporters of the death penalty argue it deters serious crimes, but empirical evidence from India shows no conclusive reduction in crime rates due to capital punishment. Studies have indicated that the deterrent effect of the death penalty is minimal, and factors such as the certainty of being caught and the severity of punishment are more influential in deterring crime. Therefore, its effectiveness as a deterrent remains questionable.
• Irreversibility and Risk of Wrongful Conviction: The irreversible nature of the death penalty is a critical ethical concern. Wrongful convictions may result in the execution of innocent individuals, reflecting a risk inherent in India’s criminal justice system. The possibility of error in the judicial process, combined with the finality of the death penalty, raises significant moral questions about its application. This concern is heightened by instances where individuals have been exonerated after spending years on death row.

 Inconsistencies in Application:

• Socio-Economic Bias: Evidence indicates the death penalty disproportionately affects marginalized communities, including the poor and minorities, raising concerns about fairness and equality before the law. Studies have shown that individuals from lower socio-economic backgrounds are more likely to receive the death penalty, often due to inadequate legal representation and systemic biases within the judicial process. This disparity undermines the principle of equal justice under the law.
• Arbitrary Sentencing: Despite Supreme Court guidelines, arbitrary and inconsistent sentencing persists. Quality of legal representation, media influence, and public opinion often affect sentencing outcomes. Research has highlighted significant variations in how different judges apply the ‘rarest of the rare’ doctrine, leading to inconsistent application of the death penalty. This arbitrariness calls into question the fairness and reliability of capital sentencing in India.

Legislative Developments

• Law Commission Report No. 262 (2015): The Law Commission of India recommended abolishing the death penalty for all offenses except terrorism. It highlighted the lack of deterrent effect and the need for alignment with India’s human rights commitments. The Commission’s report emphasized that the death penalty is an ineffective deterrent and that life imprisonment without parole is a more appropriate punishment for most offenses.
• Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013: The 2013 Criminal Law Amendment Act introduced the death penalty for certain sexual offenses following the Delhi gang rape case. Critics argue this measure is reactionary and does not address root causes of sexual violence. The amendment was seen as a response to public outrage rather than a comprehensive solution to the issue of sexual violence, raising concerns about its effectiveness and the potential for misuse.

Case Law Analysis

• Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980): The landmark judgment in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) significantly shaped India’s approach to the death penalty. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of capital punishment under Article 21 but introduced the ‘rarest of the rare’ doctrine to ensure it is imposed only in exceptional cases. The Court stressed that sentencing must balance aggravating and mitigating circumstances, including the nature of the crime, the offender’s background, and potential for reform. Courts were required to explicitly record reasons for imposing the death penalty, promoting transparency and accountability. This judgment also established the proportionality principle, ensuring that punishment corresponds to both the crime and the offender’s culpability, reflecting an effort to align capital punishment with constitutional guarantees of human dignity (Law Commission of India, 2015).
• Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983): In Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983), the Supreme Court elaborated on the ‘rarest of the rare’ doctrine, providing more structured guidelines for capital sentencing. The judgment emphasized considering the totality of circumstances surrounding the crime and the offender, including the brutality of the act, societal impact, and potential for rehabilitation. The Court underscored that the death penalty should be reserved for offenses of extreme culpability, reducing arbitrariness and promoting consistency in judicial decisions (Indian Bar Association, n.d.).
• Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014): The case of Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014) addressed procedural delays and the human rights of death row inmates. The Supreme Court commuted several death sentences due to prolonged delays, recognizing that extended periods of uncertainty can cause severe mental anguish, amounting to inhuman treatment under Article 21. The judgment highlighted the need for timely justice and efficient handling of review processes, reflecting a growing human rights perspective in India’s capital punishment jurisprudence (Supreme Court Observer, 2022).

International Perspectives:

• Global Trends: The global trend over the past few decades shows a clear movement away from the death penalty. Many countries, including Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia, have completely abolished it, while others retain it in law but rarely carry out executions. This trend is largely influenced by human rights concerns, ethical considerations, and evidence suggesting that capital punishment is not an effective deterrent. India remains one of the few large democracies that continues to retain the death penalty, although its use is limited to particularly heinous cases. International organizations like Amnesty International have repeatedly urged India to reconsider, highlighting the risks of wrongful convictions and systemic biases that make executions potentially unjust (Amnesty International, 2023)
• International Human Rights Law: The perspective of international human rights law, instruments such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) advocate for restricting and eventually abolishing the death penalty. The United Nations has consistently recommended a global moratorium on executions, emphasizing that societies should seek justice without compromising human dignity. India’s continued use of capital punishment raises questions about its alignment with evolving global standards. While India asserts its sovereign right to legislate on criminal matters, these international perspectives underline the importance of ensuring that the justice system reflects fairness, humanity, and ethical principles (OHCHR, n.d.).

Recommendations for Reform:

Considering the legal, moral, and practical concerns, one of the most compelling reforms would be the abolition of the death penalty. Ending capital punishment would align India with global human rights trends and safeguard the principle of the sanctity of life. It would also remove the risk of executing innocent individuals, a risk that cannot be fully eliminated given the imperfections in the criminal justice system. Life imprisonment without parole can serve as a stringent alternative while maintaining accountability for the most serious crimes.

If the death penalty is retained, it is crucial to strengthen legal safeguards. High-quality legal representation, mandatory psychological assessments, transparent sentencing criteria, and timely handling of trials and appeals are essential to reduce arbitrariness and ensure justice. Courts must carefully weigh both aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and their reasoning should be documented to enhance transparency.

In addition, public awareness and education are vital for shaping informed perspectives on capital punishment. Citizens should be made aware of the implications of the death penalty, the risks associated with wrongful convictions, and alternative measures for justice. Public campaigns, media engagement, and legal literacy initiatives can foster a more humane and rational approach to crime and punishment, promoting justice that respects human dignity (Project 39A, 2022).

Conclusion:

The death penalty in India continues to be a deeply complex issue, situated at the intersection of law, morality, and human rights. Constitutionally valid under Article 21, it permits the deprivation of life in accordance with the “procedure established by law.” Landmark judgments such as Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) and Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) introduced the ‘rarest of the rare’ doctrine, emphasizing that capital punishment should only be imposed in exceptional cases where the severity of the crime and the culpability of the offender demand it. While these judicial principles aim to ensure restraint, inconsistencies in application continue, often influenced by socio-economic disparities, quality of legal representation, and regional judicial practices.

From a moral perspective, the death penalty raises profound ethical questions. Critics argue that no society should have the authority to take a human life, especially considering the irreversible consequences of judicial errors. The risk of wrongful convictions, combined with systemic flaws, means that executions may sometimes punish the innocent. Evidence from India and other countries suggests that the death penalty does not have a stronger deterrent effect than life imprisonment. Furthermore, the psychological impact on death row inmates, often subjected to prolonged uncertainty and anxiety, has been acknowledged by the Supreme Court, notably in Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014), which highlighted that undue delays could amount to inhuman treatment.

Internationally, India’s retention of capital punishment contrasts with the global movement toward abolition. Over 100 countries have eliminated or suspended executions, reflecting evolving human rights norms. Instruments like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and recommendations from the United Nations emphasize humane alternatives and restrict the use of capital punishment.

Given these concerns, India must either move toward abolition or adopt stringent legal safeguards to ensure fairness, transparency, and timely judicial processes. Public education and awareness can further foster an informed societal perspective. A balanced and inclusive national dialogue involving legal experts, policymakers, and citizens is crucial to develop a criminal justice system that is ethical, equitable, and respects human dignity.

References:

1.Law Commission of India. (2015). Report No. 262: The death penalty. Government of India. https://docs.manupatra.in/newsline/articles/Upload/A23C371C-CD67-44A9-B2BC-B62BF71CDE5A.pdf

2. Indian Bar Association. (n.d.). Constitutionality of death penalty. https://www.indianbarassociation.org/constitutionality-of-death-penalty/
3. Vintage Legal. (2025, January 27). Legal and moral scope of death penalty in India: An appraisal. https://www.vintagelegalvl.com/post/legal-and-moral-scope-of-death-penalty-in-india-an-appraisal
4. Wikipedia contributors. (2025, October 19). Capital punishment in India. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_India
5. Supreme Court Observer. (2022, April 25). Court in review: Death penalty. https://www.scobserver.in/journal/court-in-review-the-death-penalty/
6. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. (n.d.). OHCHR. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights
7. 7. Manupatra – An Online Database for Legal Research
8. Shatrughan Chauhan & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 January, 2014