Bombay High Court Frowns Upon Trial Court For Relying On Mahabharata To Award Death Sentence
Background: Use of Religious/Mythological Texts in Judicial Decisions
Courts in India base their decisions on evidence, legal principles, statutes, and constitutional mandates. While references to literature, history, or philosophy may sometimes be used to illustrate a point, invoking religious or mythological texts as a basis for sentencing, especially in capital punishment cases, is highly problematic.
The Incident: Bombay High Court’s Reproach
Case Overview
A Trial Court in Maharashtra awarded the death sentence to the accused.
While delivering the judgment, the trial judge referred extensively to the Mahabharata—an ancient Indian epic—to justify the imposition of capital punishment.
The trial court used stories and analogies from the Mahabharata to assert moral and ethical reasons for the death penalty.
Bombay High Court’s Reaction
The Bombay High Court strongly disapproved this approach.
It held that judgments must be rooted in law and evidence, not mythology or religious texts.
The High Court emphasized the need for objectivity, rationality, and strict adherence to legal standards when awarding sentences, especially the death penalty.
Key Legal Principles Affirmed by the Bombay High Court
1. Death Sentence: The Ultimate Punishment
The death sentence is an exception, not the rule.
It should only be awarded where the crime is rarest of rare and after considering mitigating and aggravating circumstances.
Reliance on mythology or religion to justify death sentence undermines the secular and rational basis of law.
2. Judicial Impartiality and Secularism
Courts must maintain secularism and impartiality.
Decisions must be based on legal provisions and facts.
Use of religious texts may introduce bias or prejudice.
3. Evidence-Based Decision-Making
Sentences must be grounded in the evidence on record.
Moral or philosophical arguments, if used, must support, not replace, legal reasoning.
Relevant Case Laws on Death Sentence and Judicial Reasoning
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684
The Supreme Court laid down the “rarest of rare” doctrine for awarding the death penalty.
Death sentence must be awarded only when life imprisonment is inadequate.
Court must weigh mitigating circumstances and societal interests.
Mithu v. State of Punjab, AIR 1983 SC 473
Declared mandatory death sentences unconstitutional.
Judges must exercise discretion based on facts and law.
Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 6 SCC 498
Reaffirmed the need for careful judicial scrutiny before awarding death penalty.
Emphasized rationality over emotional or moral considerations.
K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1962 SC 605
Courts recognized the role of moral reasoning but as a subsidiary aid, not a primary ground.
Why Reliance on Mahabharata or Religious Texts is Problematic
Secular Constitution: India’s Constitution mandates separation of religion and state, especially in law.
Subjectivity: Mythological stories are open to interpretation and do not offer a fixed legal standard.
Precedent and Law Over Philosophy: Judicial decisions must follow precedent and statutory law.
Risk of Bias: Using religious justifications risks alienating minorities and undermining impartiality.
Judicial Commentary and Reactions
The Bombay High Court emphasized that legal reasoning must be distinct from religious or mythological narratives.
The court reminded trial courts that judgments have social and legal consequences, hence must be based on law.
It cautioned judges to maintain judicial discipline and avoid straying into moralizing or philosophical discourse unsupported by law.
Summary and Conclusion
The Bombay High Court’s disapproval reflects a commitment to rational, secular, and evidence-based adjudication.
While references to literature or philosophy may aid clarity or persuasion, they cannot substitute legal reasoning, especially in awarding sentences.
The death penalty requires utmost care and strict adherence to legal standards, free from subjective or religious justifications.
This judgment upholds the rule of law and constitutional values in criminal jurisprudence.
RELATED Blog
0 comments