BACHAN SINGH & THE DEATH PENALTY: THE EVOLUTION OF THE ‘RAREST OF RARE’ DOCTRINE. 

This article is written by Harsh Deep Mishra of Shambhunath Institute of Law, Prayagraj.

ABSTRACT:

In this article we will delve into the depths of  the case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab and its important role in the development of the doctrine of “rarest of rare” with respect to the punishment of death in India. Such an important legal principle would be traced concerning a capital punishment jurisprudence and the socio-legal landscape surrounding it. A critical review of judicial interpretations and legislative responses, indeed, highlights the urgency of the conflict between justice and protection of human rights. The study, placing Bachan Singh in context with historical and contemporary debates on the death penalty, adds to the understanding of how legal frameworks evolve with changing social values along with the current debate over capital punishment. It further proposes reconsideration of the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine concerning developing ethical perspectives and the need for a more just justice system.

KEY-WORDS:

Bachan Singh, death penalty, capital punishment, judicial discretion, Article 21, CrPC 354(3), mitigating factors, rarest of rare, human rights, constitutional law.

INTRODUCTION:

This topic has, practically since time immemorial, kept controversies raging. Its effects question the very morality and justice of capital punishment, regarding the matter of life and death in the hands of the state. There are many principles of law governing capital punishment; among them, the Rarest of rare doctrine is the primary and critical one establishing limits on the application of capital punishment.

This doctrine had its inception in the famous case of Bachan Singh, marking the change into an entirely new domain for courts in capital case sentencing. what is the rarest of rare doctrine? How did Bachan Singh influence this doctrine? And why is it that even now this doctrine remains at the centre of debate with respect to the death sentence? 

This article addresses the following aspects:

– Background and the importance of this case

– The evolution and meaning of the doctrine  

– How it affects the law and the viewpoint of society on capital punishment  

Let’s explore this momentous juncture in legal history that attempts to reconcile justice with humanity.

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF DEATH PENALTY:

This case (Bachan Singh v state of Punjab) challenged the constitutional validity of the punishment of giving death provided under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 354(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). These provisions permits a judge to impose a punishment of death for the offense of murder at his or her discretion.

The Supreme Court of India upheld the constitutional validity of the death punishment, by saying that it was not violating the Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution. However, the Court laid down certain parameters in this regard and in a well-known judgment introduced the famous ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine. According to this doctrine, capital punishment can be awarded only in the rarest of rare cases where the alternative option of life imprisonment is “unquestionably foreclosed.” This judgment, thus, curtailed the application of the death penalty in India, becoming thereafter a precedent by which all death sentences would be determined.

USE OF LEGAL JARGON:

• Capital Punishment: The legally authorized killing of a human being as punishment for criminal offenses.
• Judicial Discretion: Power conferred on a judge to make any ruling based on his or her discretion within the limits set by law.
• Proportionality: The punishment must be proportionate with the severity of the crime.
• Article 21:No person shall be deprived of his personal life and liberty except by procedure established by law.
• Mitigating and Aggravating Circumstances: The considerations that tend to alleviate or aggravate punishment.

Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980)

Citation: (1980) 2 SCC 684

Bench: Constitution Bench of 5 Judges

Date of Judgment: 9 May 1980

BACKGROUND 

Bachan Singh was serving life imprisonment for an earlier murder he did. After release, he was subsequently convicted for the killing of three persons, including a child. Naturally, all these warranted his being sentenced to death. Once he appealed, the case landed at the Supreme Court of India not just to contest the conviction but as a challenge against the constitutional validity of death penalty itself.

It was an important case in terms of certain fundamental rights that found expression in the country’s Constitution-the Indian Constitution itself such as:

• Article 14- Right to Equality
• Article 19- Protection of Rights relating to Freedom of Speech, etc.
• Article 21- Right to Life and Personal Liberty

The contention raised was about death penalty violating these fundamental rights, particularly Article 21 which states “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”

ISSUES RAISED

1. Is the death penalty for the crime of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code unconstitutional or not?
2. Whether the Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which mandates “special reasons” for awarding a death sentence, is constitutionally valid or not?
3. Would the imposition of the death penalty be arbitrary or, thus, violative of Article 14 and Article 21?

JUDGEMENT:

By the majority decision of 3:2, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the death penalty in India, laying down strict conditions governing its invocation. 

Key Observations: 

• Death Penalty Not Unconstitutional: The Court has held that capital punishment per se does not violate Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. It is provided for by valid law (IPC), includes procedural safeguards (CrPC) and thus more than satisfies the requirement of “prosecution 354(3) of CrPc Acts as a safeguard”: The Court has stressed the provision in Section 354(3) CrPC, which requires courts to spell out “special reasons” for imposing the death penalty, as a safeguard against arbitrary sentencing which ensures that default punishment would be life imprisonment and death awarded only in exceptional cases.
• The introduction of the “Rarest of Rare” Doctrine: The Court created the historic “rarest of rare” test, which thereafter served as a guiding principle for the award of capital punishment in India. According to that doctrine: Life imprisonment is the rule, Death penalty is the exception, and Only in the most serious cases, 
• Balancing Test: Aggravating and Mitigating Factors at the same time. The Court imparted that judges have to do this balancing act: Aggravating Factors (for example, brutal Nature of the crime: no. of victim: premeditated: cruelty) Vs Mitigating Grounds (for example, mental health, background of the accused, lack of prior records, scope of reformation).

Thus, this approach prevents the perfunctory death sentence as it safeguards from being given like that but does after entire consideration about the facts.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE JUDGEMENT 

• Set an extremely high threshold for imposing the death penalty in India.
• Provided the ground for future death penalty jurisprudence such as the cases of Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab of 1983 and another case that is  Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India of 2014
• Reaffirmed the place of human dignity and judicial discretion in capital sentencing.
• Emphasized judicial accountability and transparency in sentencing

CASE LAWS:

1. Jagmohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1973)

Citation: (1973) 1 SCC 20

Significance: First major case to uphold the constitutional validity of the death penalty.

• The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of the death sentence, claiming it violated Article 19 (freedoms) and Article 21 (right to life).

• The Court rejected the argument, holding that the procedure established by law, as required by Article 21, was fulfilled by the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
• The Court found no violation of fundamental rights, and emphasized that the judicial discretion of judges ensures fairness.
•  However, at this stage, the Court did not lay down specific sentencing guidelines — that came later in Bachan Singh.

2. Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983)

Citation: (1983) 3 SCC 470

Significance: It Clarified and elaborated the doctrine from Bachan Singh Case 

• The Court laid down a structured 5-point test to guide judges in death penalty cases:
• Motive – if it shows extreme depravity or hate.
• Anti-social nature – for e.g., killing a pregnant woman or a child.
• Weightage of the crime – multiple murders, mass killings.
• Personality of the victim – helpless victims like children, elderly, women.

3. Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal (1994)

Citation: (1994) 2 SCC 220

Significance: Applied the principles of Bachan Singh to uphold the death sentence in a brutal case.

• Rape and murder of a school girl by the security guard.
• The Court held that this crime fell into the “rarest of rare” category due to the heinous nature of the act, breach of trust, and brutality.
• The judgment emphasized that justice must also be served to the victim and society, not just the accused.
• The case remains controversial, especially among abolitionists, due to concerns about fairness and poverty of the accused.

4. Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014)

Citation: (2014) 3 SCC 1

Significance: Focused on procedural safeguards and human rights of death row prisoners.

• It is  Concerned with delays in mercy petitions and mental health issues of death row inmates.
• The Court ruled that undue delay in executing death sentences can be a ground to commute the sentence to life imprisonment.
• Highlighted:
  • Right to timely disposal of mercy petitions
  • Importance of mental health assessments
  • Need for humane treatment 
  • Communication with the prisoners
• It  Marked a change towards humanizing the death penalty jurisprudence in India.

CONCLUSION 

The Supreme Court formulated the “rarest of rare” doctrine; it did not reject capital punishment but rather contracted its field of application by putting a very high threshold on its application. Such a doctrine acts as a vital judicial filter in upholding the sanctity of human life, proportionality in punishment, and possible reformation and rehabilitation of the convict.

The subsequent operative case laws, including Machhi Singh, Dhananjoy Chatterjee, and Shatrughan Chauhan, interpreted and suited its application in terms of administering justice to the aggrieved while upholding constitutional checks and human dignity. The gradual shift toward mitigating factors, standard-based fairness, and mental health shows up in the underlying theme of a developing legal conscious that is ethical and rights-based.

Especially due to global trends toward abolition, it is still widely debated in academic and judicial circles. 

The Bachan Singh case brought into being a more humane and moderate philosophy of capital sentencing in India, seeking to reconcile the demand for retributive justice with constitutional values and changing social values. Although the “rarest of rare” doctrine therefore stands in most ways against arbitrary uses of capital punishment, it increasingly challenges us to think-which in turn must continue to be a priority of our ongoing debates-on how to attain a just system of justice.

FAQs:

1. Now, was it that through Bachan Singh that would a penalty for death get abolished in India?  

A: No, in the case of  Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab  did not have abolished the death penalty in India. On the other hand, it upheld the constitutional validity of the death penalty, stating that it did not impinge on the Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. Thus, however, a significant check was placed on the death penalty, whereby the apex court directed that in the “rarest of rare” cases would death penalty be applicable. The judgment revolutionized the judicial approach in India, from broad judicial discretion to stricter standards and moral scrutiny for the imposition of the death penalty.

2. What does “rarest of rare” doctrine mean?

A: Bachan Singh cade gave the “rarest of rare” doctrine to ensure that the death sentence could be passed only in extremely rare cases and not in every case. This doctrine stipulates that the death penalty will be reserved only for a crime for which a life sentence cannot be an adequate punishment and which shows the utmost depravity of humanity. The doctrine makes capital punishment an absolute last alternative.

3. Is death penalty really compulsory for every crime in India?

A: No, the death penalty is not the mandatory punishment for any of the crimes in India, which include all categories of murders. Even for a man who falls under the terms of section 302 of the IPC i.e. his crime falls under the category of one of the most serious of all self-reported homicides, a judge must prove a death sentence to be given by pronouncing “special reasons” according to section 354(3) of the CrPC. This provision is to ensure that life imprisonment is the general rule, and death sentence is an exception awarded only after minute consideration of the details and circumstances.

4. How does the mitigating circumstances are being considered in capital sentencing?

A: Courts must carry out an elaborate balancing act between aggravating circumstances (such as gravity and cruelty of the crime) and mitigating factors (such as the accused’s age, mental condition, etc.) This balancing test is essential to ensure fairness and justness in sentencing, for it prevents arbitrariness or excessively severe punishments.

5. Has there been an inclination to abolish the death penalty by India since Bachan Singh?

A: The capital penalty remains a legal punishment in India, but since the Bachan Singh decision, the judicial trend has been greatly subdued toward its implementation. Important other cases like Machhi Singh, Shatrughan Chauhan, etc., have built in additional safeguards, spoken for human rights, and raised questions about the use and ethics of capital punishment. Thusly, while India has not abolished the death penalty yet, its imposition has become minimal and reflects a broader global and national transformation towards recognizing human rights in the modern era.