A review of how the Supreme Court’s safeguards in the Bachan Singh case (1980) have worked in practice over four decades was published around the Day Against the Death Penalty (10 October).

In September 2026, the Supreme Court reduced a death sentence to life imprisonment (commute) in Waris v. State of Madhya Pradesh, because the State did not show that the convict could never be reformed.

• Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980): A Constitution Bench upheld the death penalty but made life imprisonment the norm, with death only for “special reasons” (Section 393(3) BNSS, 2023, earlier Section 354(3) CrPC). Death can be given only where life imprisonment is “unquestionably foreclosed”, after weighing the crime and the accused.
• Drift from the principle: Machhi Singh (1983) and Ravji v. State of Rajasthan (1995) focused on the crime, and two convicts were hanged under Ravji. Santosh Kumar Bariyar (2009) held Ravji was decided in ignorance of Bachan Singh.
• Reformation: The 262nd Law Commission Report (2015) and later judgments stressed reformation, and the State must prove by evidence that it is not possible.
• Poor trial practice: In a study of 306 death sentences (2018 to 20), 36.1% were pronounced on the same day as conviction, and in most cases the defence presented no mitigation evidence.

• Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022): The State must produce a mental health evaluation, a report on conduct in custody and a probation officer’s report.
• Constitution Bench reference: Defence must get a real chance to present material on sentence.
• Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. Union of India (2025): A sentencing hearing that follows Manoj flows from Articles 14 and 21. A death sentence without one is unconstitutional and can be reopened even after finality.
• Waris v. State of Madhya Pradesh (24 September 2026): The Court commuted the death sentence for a child’s rape and murder to imprisonment for the rest of the convict’s life without remission, as the State led no evidence to exclude reformation.

• Procedure ignored: In 2025, trial courts sentenced 128 people to death, and in 95.18% of the cases where compliance could be assessed, the Manoj procedure was not followed.
• Flawed investigations: Nearly a third of death sentences decided by High Courts and the Supreme Court in the past decade ended in acquittals. In 2025, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused in 10 of the 19 cases it decided.
• The 2012 letter: Fourteen retired judges called the two Ravji-era executions “the gravest known miscarriage of justice” in independent India.

• Dignity of life: The safeguards link the death penalty to Articles 14 and 21.
• Fair sentencing: An individualised hearing on the accused’s circumstances reduces arbitrariness.
• Irreversibility: A system prone to error shouldn’t decide an irreversible punishment on crime alone.

• Trial courts often do not follow the Manoj guidelines.
• Weak investigation and forensic quality.
• Resource gaps: Probation officers, mental health experts and defence lawyers are scarce.
• Public anguish over brutal crimes can overwhelm legal reasoning.

• Bachan Singh (1980): Constitution Bench upheld the death penalty, with the “rarest of rare” approach.
• Section 393(3) BNSS, 2023: Replaced Section 354(3) CrPC, and requires “special reasons” for a death sentence.
• Manoj (2022) and Dupare (2025): Manoj set guidelines on information about the accused, and Dupare held that a Manoj-compliant sentencing hearing flows from Articles 14 and 21.
• Article 32: The Supreme Court’s power to enforce fundamental rights, used to reopen sentences.