Death Penalty In Asia Vs India
Death Penalty in Asia
Asia has a mixed approach towards the death penalty. Some countries, like China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Japan, actively enforce the death penalty for various crimes, including drug trafficking, murder, terrorism, and in some cases, economic crimes.
Countries like Singapore, Malaysia, and Indonesia still retain capital punishment, often mandatorily for drug offenses.
Other Asian countries, such as Bhutan, Nepal, and Mongolia, have abolished the death penalty or have not carried out executions for many years.
China is known to execute more people annually than the rest of the world combined, though exact numbers are state secrets.
Japan conducts executions but maintains rigorous legal protections and periodic judicial review.
Many Asian countries’ legal systems are influenced by a blend of local customs, colonial legacies, and international human rights norms.
Death Penalty in India
India retains the death penalty but applies it very sparingly.
The Supreme Court of India has ruled that the death penalty must be given only in the "rarest of rare" cases.
Death penalty cases in India involve extensive judicial scrutiny with multiple appeals and mercy petitions.
The death penalty is mainly for crimes such as murder, terrorism, treason, and certain cases of rape.
India is not a signatory to the international moratorium on the death penalty but balances it with constitutional protections under Article 21 (Right to Life).
Important Indian Cases on Death Penalty (with detailed explanations):
1. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980)
Facts: Bachan Singh was convicted of murder. The main question was whether the death penalty violated the Constitution of India, especially the right to life under Article 21.
Supreme Court Decision: The Court held that the death penalty is constitutionally valid but should be imposed only in the "rarest of rare" cases where life imprisonment is not an adequate punishment.
Significance: This case laid the foundation for the "rarest of rare" doctrine, which guides courts in death penalty sentencing in India. It struck a balance between upholding the death penalty and restricting its arbitrary use.
2. Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983)
Facts: This case further clarified the "rarest of rare" doctrine. The accused were convicted of multiple murders.
Supreme Court Decision: The Court elaborated on factors that justify the death penalty — such as brutality, premeditation, motive, and the impact on society.
Significance: The judgment provided detailed guidelines on when the death penalty is justified, emphasizing judicial discretion and the need for examining the circumstances carefully.
3. Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014)
Facts: The petitioner challenged delays in the disposal of mercy petitions, arguing that prolonged delay caused inordinate suffering tantamounting to inhumane treatment.
Supreme Court Decision: The Court held that an unexplained delay of more than three years in deciding mercy petitions may be grounds for commuting death sentences to life imprisonment.
Significance: This case emphasized the right to speedy justice, even post-conviction, and the need to prevent cruelty caused by excessive delays in the death penalty process.
4. Raj Kumar v. State of Haryana (2017)
Facts: The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of Section 354(3) of the IPC (related to rape punishment) but also argued broader issues regarding death penalty in rape cases.
Supreme Court Decision: The Court upheld the death penalty for the rape of minors but reiterated it should only be imposed in the rarest of rare cases.
Significance: This case shows India’s tough stance on heinous crimes like rape while balancing with the "rarest of rare" principle.
5. Mithu v. State of Punjab (1983)
Facts: The petitioner challenged the mandatory death penalty provision for murder under Section 303 of the IPC.
Supreme Court Decision: The Court struck down mandatory death penalty provisions, stating that the death penalty must be discretionary and subject to judicial review.
Significance: This case reinforced that mandatory death sentences violate the constitutional guarantee of due process.
Contrasting Death Penalty in Asia (other countries) vs India:
| Aspect | India | Other Asian Countries |
|---|---|---|
| Application | Rarely applied, restricted to rarest of rare | Frequently applied (China, Iran, Saudi Arabia) |
| Legal Safeguards | Extensive judicial review and mercy petitions | Varies widely; some with minimal safeguards |
| Common Crimes | Murder, terrorism, rape | Drug trafficking, political crimes, murder |
| Mandatory Death Penalty | Not allowed (ruled unconstitutional) | Present in countries like Singapore and Malaysia |
| International Stance | Not abolitionist but cautious | Mixed — some actively execute, others moratorium |
Additional Noteworthy Asian Cases (for comparison):
Japan’s Supreme Court often upholds death sentences but requires stringent procedural safeguards.
Singapore enforces mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking but recently allowed judicial discretion in certain cases.
Iran applies the death penalty for a wide range of offenses, often criticized for lack of fair trial standards.
Summary:
India’s death penalty system is one of restrained use with strong procedural safeguards, judicial review, and evolving human rights considerations.
In contrast, many Asian countries retain harsh and frequently applied capital punishment systems often for drug offenses and political crimes.
Indian judiciary balances the constitutional right to life with the need for deterrence, thus following the "rarest of rare" principle.
The death penalty landscape in Asia is diverse, reflecting different cultural, political, and legal traditions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments