BACHAN SINGH VS STATE OF PUNJAB (1980)

CASE TITLE AND CITATION 

The name of this famous case is BACHAN SINGH VS STATE OF PUNJAB (1980). This landmark judgement is officially cited as AIR 1980 SC 898. It was reported in both All India reporter and the Supreme Court Cases reporter , making it a binding precedent for all courts across india in matter related to capital punishment and sentencing policy. This judgement is historically significant as it upheld the constitutional validity of the death penalty while simultaneously restricting its application through the celebrating ‘Rarest of Rare’ Doctrine. It marked a transformative moment in Indian Constitutional law, elevating the interpretation of the Right to Life under Article 21 from a narrow procedural safeguard to a substantive guarantee requiring fairness , reasonableness, and judicial restraint in sentencing. 

INTRODUCTION 

Bachan Singh VS State of Punjab is a landmark Supreme Court judgement that constitutionally upheld the validity of the death penalty in India , while laying down strict limitations on its use . The judgement evolved the celebrated  “rarest of rare’’ doctrine which continues to guide Indian courts in capital sentencing. The case widely regarded as constitutional balancing of an individuals righ to life under Article 21 with state power to impose capital punishment through legislative policy Under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 

Background and Facts 

The Bachan Singh , had previously been convicted of murdering his wife, had served 14 years in prison for that crime. After his release, he committed another horrific act, brutally murdering three relatives – Desa Singh, Durga Bai , and Veeran Bai – using an Axe . 

He was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian penal code (IPC) And subsequently sentenced to death by both the trial and High Courts , setting stage for a crucial legal battle . 

This case was heard by a Constitution Bench of Five judges Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, Justice N.L. Untwalia , Justice P.N. Bhagwati , Justice R.S. Sarkaria and Justice A.C. Gupta. and forms a continuation of the principles emerging from Jagmohan Singh vs. State of U.P. (1973), where the supreme court had upheld the death penalty but without a structured sentencing framework . 

Issues Before the Court 

The key issues were : 

1. Constitutionality of Death Penalty  Is capital punishment under Section 302 IPC valid in a democratic society?
2. Whether the death penalty under section 302 IPC is unconstitutional as being arbitrary and violative of Articles 14,19, and 21. 
3. Whether the death penalty should be completely abolished in India .
4. Whether the procedure for imposing the death sentence under the CrPC (post-1973 amendments) meets the due process requirements under Article 21.
5. Arbitrary sentencing ? Does Section 354(3) CrPc grant judges unchecked discretion , leading to potentially arbitrary capital sentence?

Arguments 

Petitioner’s Arguments 

• Death penalty is inhumane , injustice and degrading violating the right to life under Article 21. 

• Capital punishment is arbitrary and discriminatory in  nature, violating Article 14. 

• Punishment of life imprisonment is sufficient to meet goals of justice. 

• International human rights jurisprudence increasingly favors abolition. 

State’s Arguments 

• Death penalty exists as legitimate constitutional punishment under Legislative wisdom.

• The state must retain the power to impose death penalty in extremely heinous crimes for deterrence .

• The 1973 crpc amendments allowed  sentencing courts to record specific reasons for imposing death, ensuring due process.  

JUDGEMENT 

The Supreme Court in , a 4:1 majority upheld the constitutional validity of the death penalty but restricted its application. The court upheld that capital punishment does not violate articles 14,19, or 21 if imposed following fair sentencing procedure . The court introduced the doctrine of ‘rarest of rare cases’’, stating that death penalty must only be imposed when: 

• The death penalty should be imposed exclusively in cases where the crime’s brutality in exceptional and life imprisonment is an inadequate alternative.
• Judges must meticulously consider both aggravating factors (e.g., offender’s background , possibility of reform) before sentencing.

Key Legal Principles Established 

• Rarest of rare doctrine : this principle require courts to consider the crime’s brutality , motive, manner of crime , and impact on society . mitigating factors include mental state , age , potential for rehabilitation and socio – economic background.

• Individualized Sentencing: The court emphasized a structured balance between aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Mitigating factors include age, mental state, socio-economic background, and potential for rehabilitation.

• Article 21 and Due Process: The judgment interpreted Article 21 expansively, holding that death penalty is valid only when awarded through a fair, reasonable, and just process, aligning with post-Maneka Gandhi jurisprudence.

Judicial, Not Executive, Discretion

The power to impose capital punishment lies strictly with the judiciary, supported by written reasons, preventing arbitrary executive application.

Dissenting Opinion (Justice Bhagwati)

Justice P.N. Bhagwati dissented, arguing that: Death penalty is arbitrary and discriminatory, often imposed inconsistently. It violates Article 21 due to lack of clear sentencing guidelines. The punishment serves no rational purpose and may disproportionately impact marginalized groups. His dissent later influenced human rights scholarship and judicial reforms.

Criticism

Scholars critique the doctrine because: The phrase “rarest of rare” lacks precise definition, leading to subjective judicial interpretation.

Sentencing still varies depending on judge ideology, social factors, and media influence. Empirical research suggests death penalty may not have significant deterrent value. Human rights advocates argue that the possibility of wrongful conviction makes irreversible punishment deeply problematic.

Conclusion

Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab stands as a pivotal constitutional decision balancing judicial restraint, human rights, and societal demands for justice. While it upheld capital punishment, it simultaneously limited its scope, ensuring that the death penalty is not a routine sentencing option but a last resort. 

The judgment reflects the Indian judiciary’s attempt to harmonize individual liberties with public justice, making it one of the most influential decisions in the criminal law landscape. Its legacy endures, shaping legal discourse on punishment, constitutional morality, and human dignity in India.