Answer

The death penalty remains a contentious issue in India, where the judiciary balances retributive justice with the right to life under Article 21. According to the 2023 Death Penalty India Report by Project 39A, 561 people were on death row in India at the end of the year. The Court has consistently ruled that the death penalty  must be imposed only when alternative punishments, such as life imprisonment, are deemed inadequate.

Constitutional Validity of the Death Penalty in India

• Judicial Scrutiny Ensures Fair Process: The Supreme Court has upheld the death penalty as constitutional, provided that due process is followed and mitigating circumstances are considered before sentencing.
  For example: In Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P., the Court ruled that capital punishment does not violate fundamental rights if imposed through a fair legal procedure.
• Rarest of Rare Doctrine Limits Use: The introduction of the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine ensures that capital punishment is awarded only in extreme cases, preventing arbitrary application.
  For example: In Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court upheld a death sentence but emphasized that life imprisonment should be the norm, and death should be an exception.
• Guidelines for Consistency: The Supreme Court has laid down conditions for deciding when a case qualifies as ‘rarest of rare’, ensuring some level of uniformity in sentencing.
  For example: In Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court listed factors like brutality, motive, and victim vulnerability to determine whether the death penalty is justified.
• Mandatory Death Penalty Struck Down: Any provision mandating automatic capital punishment without judicial review has been declared unconstitutional, ensuring individual case assessment.
  For example: In Mithu v. State of Punjab, the Court struck down Section 303 IPC, which imposed a compulsory death sentence on life-term convicts committing murder.
• Judicial Review for Sentencing Reform: The Supreme Court has sought to improve sentencing procedures by emphasizing a detailed hearing on mitigating factors before awarding the death penalty.
  For example: In 2022, the Court referred the issue of mitigating circumstances to a Constitution Bench, aiming to establish a uniform approach for capital sentencing.

How the Death Penalty Conforms with Article 21

• Procedure Established by Law: Article 21 guarantees the right to life, but it also states that life can be deprived only through due legal procedure. Courts ensure fair trials before sentencing.
  For example: In Bachan Singh (1980), the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty is constitutional if imposed after a fair judicial process.
• Judicial Safeguards in Sentencing: The doctrine of rarest of rare ensures that only the most heinous crimes result in a death sentence, preventing arbitrary deprivation of life.
• Provision for Clemency: Article 72 and 161 of the Constitution provide executive clemency powers, allowing the President and Governors to commute death sentences, ensuring additional protection.
  For example: In Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014), the Supreme Court commuted multiple death sentences due to delays in mercy petitions, upholding human rights.
• Scope for Review and Appeal: Death row convicts have access to multiple judicial reviews, including High Courts, Supreme Court, and Curative Petitions, ensuring that no innocent person is wrongly executed.
  For example: In Mohd. Arif v. Supreme Court of India (2014), the Court held that review petitions in death cases must be heard in open court, improving transparency.
• Alternative Punishments Considered: Courts first evaluate life imprisonment as an option before imposing the death penalty, ensuring it is used as an absolute last resort.
  For example: In Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka (2008), the Supreme Court commuted a death sentence to life imprisonment without parole, balancing justice and humanity.

How the Death Penalty goes against Article 21

• Arbitrariness in Sentencing: The lack of a clear definition for ‘rarest of rare’ results in inconsistent judicial decisions, violating the principle of fairness under Article 21.
  For example: In Rajendra Prasad v. State of U.P. (1979), the Supreme Court criticized the uncertainty in capital sentencing, leading to subjective judicial interpretations.
• Disproportionate Impact on the Poor: The death penalty is often disproportionately imposed on marginalized individuals who lack quality legal representation, violating their right to equal legal protection.
  For example: The Death Penalty India Report (2016) found that over 74% of death row prisoners belonged to economically or socially disadvantaged communities.
• Risk of Wrongful Execution: Judicial errors in death penalty cases are irreversible, violating the right to life by punishing innocent individuals.
  For example: In Santosh Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra (2009), the Supreme Court admitted that past cases had been wrongly decided, highlighting the risk of wrongful executions.
• Mental Trauma from Death Row Delays: Prolonged imprisonment on death row results in psychological suffering, which the Supreme Court has equated to inhuman and degrading treatment.
  For example: In Triveniben v. State of Gujarat (1989), the Court acknowledged that delayed executions violate Article 21, as prisoners suffer extreme anxiety and distress.
• Availability of Alternative Punishments: Life imprisonment without parole ensures punishment while allowing for reform, making the death penalty an unnecessary deprivation of life.

Way Forward

• Standardized Sentencing Framework: A clear, uniform legal framework should be developed to define ‘rarest of rare’, ensuring consistent application of the death penalty.
• Stronger Legal Aid for Underprivileged Accused: The government should provide high-quality public defenders to ensure fair trials for economically weaker death row convicts.
  For example: The National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) should expand its reach to ensure better legal representation in capital cases.
• Expedited Review and Clemency Process: Courts should ensure timely disposal of death penalty appeals, and the executive should decide mercy petitions within a fixed timeframe.
  For example: In Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014), the Supreme Court commuted multiple death sentences due to excessive delays in mercy petitions.
• Greater Emphasis on Rehabilitation: The focus should shift toward reformative justice, considering life imprisonment without parole as a more humane alternative.
• National Debate on Abolition: A structured public and legislative discussion should be initiated to consider abolishing the death penalty in favor of life imprisonment without parole.
  For example: Many countries, including the U.K. and Canada, have abolished capital punishment, demonstrating that strict life sentences can serve justice without execution.

A progressive legal framework must balance justice and reformation while upholding constitutional morality. Stricter sentencing guidelines, judicial safeguards, and alternative penal reforms can ensure a just system. India’s evolving jurisprudence on human rights should steer towards a rare-use doctrine, aligning with Article 21’s essence where justice is served without compromising the sanctity of life.

DOWNLOAD PDF