Death Penalty in India

About Death Penalty

• The death penalty (capital punishment) refers to the execution of an offender after conviction through due process of law. It is based on the principle of retributive justice, where punishment is proportional to the severity of the crime.
• In India, it is retained under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, covering offences such as murder, terrorism, mob lynching, and rape of minors.
• The legal process involves confirmation by High Court, followed by appeals to the Supreme Court and constitutional remedies like mercy petitions.
• Certain categories such as juveniles, pregnant women, and mentally ill persons are exempt from execution.

Supreme Court Judgements

• Jagmohan Singh (1973): Upheld the constitutional validity of the death penalty.
• Bachan Singh (1980): Introduced the “rarest of rare” doctrine, limiting its application.
• Machhi Singh (1983): Provided criteria such as nature, motive, and magnitude of crime to identify such cases.
• Shatrughan Chauhan (2014): Recognised delay in execution as a ground for commutation, and protected mentally ill convicts.
• Manoj v. State of MP (2022): Mandated mitigation analysis and psychological evaluation before sentencing.
• Vasanta Sampat Dupare (2025): Allowed review of death sentences where procedural safeguards are violated.

Arguments in Favour of Death Penalty

• It satisfies retributive justice, ensuring proportional punishment for heinous crimes.
• It is believed to act as a deterrent, discouraging potential offenders from committing serious crimes.
• It provides moral closure to victims’ families and reflects society’s collective conscience.
• It reduces long-term burden on the state in maintaining high-risk offenders.
• Public opinion often supports retention, especially after heinous crimes like the 2012 Delhi case.

Arguments Against Death Penalty

• There is no conclusive evidence of deterrence, as noted by the Justice Verma Committee.
• The application of the “rarest of rare” doctrine is often subjective and inconsistent.
• Judicial errors can lead to irreversible miscarriages of justice, including execution of innocent persons.
• Socio-economic disparities result in unequal access to quality legal defence.
• The “death row phenomenon” is considered a form of mental torture.
• Modern jurisprudence emphasises reformative justice rather than retribution.

Global Examples

• The UN General Assembly has increasingly supported a moratorium on executions, indicating a global shift towards abolition.
• Europe and Central Asia are largely death penalty-free regions.
• Many countries in Africa and the Americas have abolished it in law or practice.
• However, countries in West Asia and parts of Asia, including China, continue to retain it.
• In South Asia, Nepal and Bhutan have abolished, while India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh retain it.

Way Forward

• Ensure strict implementation of mitigation guidelines (Manoj case) before awarding death sentences.
• Establish a Sentencing Council to reduce arbitrariness and ensure consistency.
• Strengthen forensic and evidence-based investigation to reduce wrongful convictions.
• Improve access to quality legal aid under Article 39A.
• Introduce and standardise life imprisonment without remission as an alternative.
• Consider gradual reform in line with the Law Commission’s recommendation to limit or abolish death penalty.

Conclusion

• The death penalty remains one of the most contentious aspects of criminal justice, balancing justice and human rights. Given the fallibility of the justice system, its application demands utmost caution, fairness, and procedural rigor. A gradual shift towards reformative and humane justice, while ensuring accountability for heinous crimes, remains the way forward.