After Reading This Article You Can Solve This UPSC Mains PYQ (2019):
Capital punishment is retributive justice and its effectiveness in curbing crime is contested. In this light, critically examine the need for continuance of capital punishment in India. 15 Mains (GS2, Indian Polity)
Context
On the occasion of the World Day Against the Death Penalty (October 10), the Supreme Court’s evolving jurisprudence on capital punishment highlights the importance of procedural fairness, individualised sentencing and the constitutional right to dignity. Despite judicial safeguards, their implementation at the trial court level remains inadequate.
Introduction
Capital punishment remains one of the most debated aspects of India’s criminal justice system. While the Supreme Court upheld its constitutional validity in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980), it restricted its application through stringent judicial safeguards.The central constitutional question is no longer merely whether the death penalty is permissible, but whether it is imposed through a fair, evidence-based and constitutionally compliant process.
Understanding the Evolution of Death Penalty Jurisprudence
1. Bachan Singh (1980): Establishing the Rarest of Rare Doctrine
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of capital punishment while establishing the rarest of rare doctrine, making life imprisonment the rule and death sentence an exception. It mandated special reasons, individualised sentencing and consideration of the possibility of reformation.
2. From Crime-Centric to Individual-Centric Sentencing
- Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983): Emphasised the gravity and circumstances of the crime in determining capital punishment, elaborating the rarest of rare doctrine.
- Ravji v. State of Rajasthan (1995): Prioritised the nature and gravity of the offence over the mitigating circumstances of the accused, departing from the Bachan Singh framework.
- Santosh Kumar Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra (2009): Corrected the crime-centric approach and reaffirmed individualised sentencing, proportionality and the need to consider the possibility of reformation.
3. Manoj (2022): Strengthening Procedural Fairness
The Supreme Court mandated comprehensive collection of mitigating circumstances, including psychological condition, socio-economic background, prison conduct and probation reports. These guidelines enable meaningful individualised sentencing and informed assessment of the possibility of reformation.
4. Vasanta Sampat Dupare (2025): Constitutionalising Fair Sentencing
The Supreme Court strengthened Manoj safeguards by emphasising meaningful sentencing hearings and a genuine opportunity to present mitigating evidence under Articles 14 and 21. Non-compliance with mandatory procedural safeguards can render death sentences constitutionally vulnerable, even after attaining finality.
5. Waris v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2026): Evidence-Based Reformation Assessment
The Supreme Court commuted the death sentence as the prosecution failed to establish through evidence that the possibility of reformation was foreclosed. The judgment reaffirmed that the brutality of the crime alone cannot justify capital punishment without ruling out rehabilitation.
Constitutional and Legal Framework: What Makes Due Process Essential?
| Constitutional provision | Relevance |
| Article 14 | Ensures equality before law and protection against arbitrary sentencing. |
| Article 20 | Provides safeguards against retrospective criminal laws, double jeopardy and self-incrimination. |
| Article 21 | Guarantees life and personal liberty through a fair, just and reasonable procedure. |
| Article 72 | Empowers the President to grant pardon, reprieve, respite, remission or commutation of death sentences. |
| Article 161 | Provides similar clemency powers to State Governors, subject to constitutional limitations. |
Important legal provisions:
- Section 393(3) of BNSS, 2023: Requires special reasons for imposing a death sentence.
- Section 395 of BNSS: Provides for payment of compensation in specified circumstances, including wrongful prosecution-related contexts.
Significance: Why Do These Judicial Safeguards Matter?
1. Protects constitutional morality: Ensures that punishment remains consistent with human dignity and constitutional values.
2. Prevents arbitrary sentencing: Establishes objective standards and limits excessive judicial discretion.
3. Promotes individualised justice: Recognises the influence of socio-economic, psychological and personal circumstances on criminal behaviour.
4. Strengthens criminal justice accountability: Requires the prosecution to establish the absence of reasonable prospects of reformation through evidence.
5. Reduces wrongful executions: Ensures greater scrutiny of investigations, forensic evidence, prosecution claims and mitigating circumstances before imposing an irreversible punishment.
Challenges: Why Does the Implementation Gap Persist?
1. Crime-centric approach: Trial courts often prioritise the brutality of the offence over the circumstances and reformative potential of the accused.
2. Inadequate legal representation: Financial and institutional constraints prevent accused persons from presenting effective mitigating evidence.
3. Weak investigative mechanisms: Flawed investigations, questionable confessions and unreliable forensic evidence increase the possibility of wrongful convictions.
4. Lack of institutional capacity: Shortage of trained probation officers, forensic experts and mental health professionals affects the quality of sentencing.
5. Judicial inconsistency: Divergent interpretations of the rarest of rare doctrine create uncertainty in capital sentencing.
Way Forward
1. Institutionalise Manoj guidelines: Ensure mandatory compliance with mitigation-related requirements at every trial court before sentencing.
2. Strengthen legal aid: Provide specialised and adequately resourced defence counsel to death-row prisoners.
3. Introduce comprehensive mitigation assessments: Consider psychological, socio-economic, educational and family backgrounds of the accused.
4. Improve forensic accountability: Strengthen forensic laboratories, evidence preservation, scientific investigation and independent expert examination.
5. Ensure meaningful sentencing hearings: Provide adequate time to the defence to collect and present mitigating evidence after conviction.
Conclusion
The evolution from Bachan Singh to Manoj and Dupare underscores the Supreme Court’s commitment to constitutional safeguards in capital sentencing. However, their effectiveness depends on proper implementation. The legitimacy of capital punishment rests not merely on the gravity of the crime but on a fair, reliable and constitutionally compliant process, as procedural fairness is a fundamental requirement of justice, not an act of mercy.
| Important Current to Concept From This Article for UPSC Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) Waris v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2026) |