Authored By: Shivani Singh
Amity University Patna
ABSTRACT
The death penalty in India continues to be a deeply divisive subject, intersecting questions of justice, morality, human rights, and legal consistency. While India retains capital punishment, its use is limited to the “rarest of rare” cases as laid down by the Supreme Court in Bachan Singh V. State of Punjab (1980). However, the implementation of this principle has been inconsistent, leading to concerns over arbitrariness, judicial discretion, and systematic biases, particularly against the poor and marginalized.
Key judicial precedents that have shaped its interpretation. It also explores the role of clemency powers, the functioning of mercy petitions, and the ethical dilemmas faced by the judiciary in balancing retributive and reformative justice.
Further, the study contextualizes India’s stance in light of international human rights norms and the growing global momentum toward abolition. The paper highlights recent recommendations by law commissions and judicial voices advocating for reform, greater transparency, and procedural safeguards.
In conclusion, the paper argues for a reassessment of Capital Punishment within India’s evolving constitutional morality, suggesting that legal reform must prioritize consistency, fairness, and alignment with international human rights standards.
INTRODUCTION
The death penalty remains one of the most debated and emotionally charged issues in the Indian legal system. As a form of capital punishment, it raises fundamental questions about justice, deterrence, retribution, and human rights. While the Indian Constitution allows the death penalty in the “rarest of rare” cases, judicial and legislative interpretations of this standard have evolved. Recent years have witnessed growing scrutiny over the arbitrariness, procedural lapses, and socioeconomic biases that often influence death penalty verdicts.
The death penalty in India is a complex issue governed by the BNS, 2023, which expanded death penalty -eligible offenses from 12 to 18, covering crimes like murder, terrorism.
In light of global trends toward abolition, increasing reliance on forensic evidence, and concerns about the irreversible nature of the punishment, India is at a crossroads. This paper revisits the legal framework governing the death penalty, analyzes the modalities of its implementation, and explores the scope and necessity for reforms. By critically examining case law, statutory provisions, and comparative international practices, the objective is to assess whether the death penalty still holds a legitimate place in India’s justice system or if it is time for a systematic re-evaluation.
THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK
Under Indian law, the death penalty is awarded for a range of offenses including murder (section 302 IPC)[1], terrorism-related acts, and certain instances of rape and sexual assault involving children (e.g., POCSO Act amendments).
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, 1980[2]:
This doctrine, while attempting to limit arbitrary application, has nonetheless suffered from inconsistent interpretations and a lack of clear standards across High Courts and trial courts.
CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS DIMENSIONS.
The retention of the death penalty raises critical questions regarding the sanctity of life (Article 21[3]), equality before law (Article 14), and protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
Internationally, India is a signatory to the International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights
Globally, over 140 countries have either abolished the death penalty in law or practice. India’s position is increasingly seen as anachronistic, as public opinion shifts toward a rehabilitative and reformative model of justice.
PROCEDURAL CONCERNS AND MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE
Miscarriages of justice in capital punishment cases are not theoretical risks- they are real, recurring, and tragic. For example, the case of Mohammad Afzal Guru and Yakub Memon, and several others have raised concerns about due process and political overtones in influencing capital sentencing.
In Shatrughan Chauhan V. Union of India[4] (2014), the Supreme Court of India determined that excessive delays in addressing mercy petitions could serve as valid reasons for converting death sentences into life imprisonment. The Court ruled that extended delays, which placed death row inmates under immense mental distress and uncertainty, constituted cruel and inhumane treatment that infringed upon their rights under Article 21[5] of the Indian constitution. The Court acknowledged that such delays in the resolution of mercy petitions, together with the psychological strain and suffering experienced by the convicts, represented a breach of their fundamental rights. As a result, it ordered the conversion of the death sentences for the petitioners to life imprisonment.
These guidelines were designed to ensure a prompt and equitable process, thus protecting the rights of inmates on death row and reinforcing the ideals of justice and human dignity.
PROPOSED REFORMS
Enhanced Legal Representation: Improving legal aid, especially for marginalized groups, can reduce disparities.
Sentencing Guidelines: Clear standards for the “rarest of rare” doctrine and mandatory mitigation reports can ensure fairness.
Alternative Punishment: Considering alternative Punishments can provide a more nuanced approach to justice.
- Strengthen Legal Representation: Many on death row receive inadequate defense. The State must ensure competent and well-funded legal aid, especially in capital cases.
- Ensure transparency in clemency proceedings: Presidential mercy petitions, governed by Articles 72 and 161[6] often lack transparency. Time bound and reasoned decisions should be mandated.
- Adopt a Moratorium: Pending complete abolition, India should formally adopt a moratorium on executions and work towards judicial reform.
- Public Education and victim support: A shift away from retribution requires sensitization programs and improved victim compensation and support mechanisms.
CONCLUSION
Even though the judiciary has implemented stringent limitations on its use through the “rarest of rare” framework, the ongoing presence and recent broadening of capital punishment under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (2023) Research challenges its deterrent effect, and statistics reveal concerning trends of socioeconomic and legal disadvantages among individuals sentenced to death. Additionally, irreversible errors in justice and the psychological torment of extended imprisonment underscore the moral vulnerabilities of the system.
India stands at a moral and legal crossroads in its approach to capital punishment. While the death penalty is legally permissible, its application has proven too inconsistent, often flawed, and prone to irreversible error. A re-evaluation of its utility and morality in a democratic, rights- respecting society is not just necessary it is utility and morality in a democratic, rights-respecting society is not just necessary it is urgent. Abolition or significant reform would signal India’s commitment to justice that heals rather than harms.
Reference(S):
[1] Indian Penal Code 1860(sec 302)
[2] Case: Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab,1980, Act No 45 of 1860
[3] M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (Lexis Nexus, Delhi, 8th edn, 2025)
[4] Case: Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India https://indiankanoon.org accessed on 25june, 2025.
[5] M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (Lexis Nexus, Delhi, 8th edn, 2025)
[6] M.P. Jain Indian Constitutional Law (Lexis Nexus, Delhi 8th edn, 2025), Article 72, 161, accessed on 25 June, 2025
