Supreme Court Rulings On Death Penalty In India
Death Penalty in India: Overview
The death penalty, or capital punishment, is the most severe form of punishment imposed by the Indian judiciary. It is governed primarily by the Indian Penal Code (IPC), especially sections like:
Section 302 (Murder)
Section 376A (Rape leading to death)
Section 364A (Kidnapping for ransom leading to death)
And others under specific laws.
Constitutional Context
Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
The Supreme Court has interpreted the death penalty within this constitutional framework, balancing it with societal needs for justice.
The death penalty is awarded only in the "rarest of rare" cases, as per Supreme Court precedent.
Key Supreme Court Rulings on Death Penalty
1. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980)
Facts:
Bachan Singh was convicted of murder and sentenced to death.
Issue:
Whether the death penalty violates Article 21 and the extent of its application.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty but restricted its use to the “rarest of rare” cases. The Court laid down guidelines for sentencing:
Courts must consider aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
Death penalty should be imposed only when life imprisonment is inadequate.
Sentencing must be reasoned and documented.
Significance:
This is the landmark case that established the “rarest of rare” doctrine, which remains the foundational principle guiding death penalty cases.
2. Mithu v. State of Punjab (1983)
Facts:
The case challenged the mandatory death penalty for drug offenses under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
Issue:
Whether a mandatory death sentence without considering circumstances violates Article 21.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court struck down the mandatory death sentence provision, holding that capital punishment cannot be imposed as a mandatory sentence. Courts must exercise discretion based on facts.
Significance:
This ruling emphasized judicial discretion in death penalty cases, prohibiting automatic or mandatory death sentences.
3. Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983)
Facts:
Machhi Singh and others were convicted of multiple murders and sentenced to death.
Issue:
What constitutes “rarest of rare” cases warranting death penalty.
Judgment:
The Court elaborated on the “rarest of rare” principle, stating that death penalty is justified when:
The crime is so heinous that life imprisonment is inadequate.
The manner of commission is brutal, dastardly, or depraved.
The crime shocks the collective conscience of society.
Significance:
This case refined the criteria for imposing the death penalty and emphasized the need for proportionality in sentencing.
4. Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014)
Facts:
The petition challenged delays in deciding mercy petitions of death row prisoners.
Issue:
Whether undue delay in processing mercy petitions violates the right to life under Article 21.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court ruled that prolonged delay in deciding mercy petitions causes mental torture tantamount to “death row phenomenon,” violating Article 21. The court directed fast-tracking of mercy petition disposal.
Significance:
The ruling addressed procedural safeguards and humane treatment of death row inmates, protecting their fundamental rights.
5. K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1962)
Facts:
Nanavati was convicted for murder but the circumstances involved provocation.
Issue:
Whether mitigating circumstances like provocation reduce the death penalty to life imprisonment.
Judgment:
The Court reduced the death sentence to life imprisonment, noting that while the offence was grave, mitigating factors warranted leniency.
Significance:
This case established that mitigating factors like provocation, lack of prior criminal record, or remorse must be carefully considered before awarding the death penalty.
Summary
The Supreme Court restricts death penalty use to the “rarest of rare” cases.
Judicial discretion is mandatory; no mandatory death sentences allowed.
Sentencing must consider aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
Delays in mercy petitions violate human rights and must be avoided.
The death penalty balances constitutional rights with societal interest in justice.
RELATED Blog
0 comments