Author: Kartikey Agrawal, United University Linkedin Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/kartikey-agrawal-853bbb269?utm_source=share&utm_campaign=share_via&utm_content=profile&utm_medium=android_app
To the Point
The corner case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab( 1980) is one of the most significant rulings of the Supreme Court of India which shapes the original and moral debate building up the death penalty. Delivered by a Constitution Bench of five judges, the judgment upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty while simultaneously placing strict limitations on its operation through the prolusion of the” rarest of rare” doctrine.
This composition provides a comprehensive legal analysis of the case, exploring the indigenous questions involved, the socio-legal terrain, judicial sense, differing opinions, and its long- term implications on Indian lawless justice. It further compares global perspectives on capital discipline and examines how Indian law continues to evolve under the weight of this seminal judgment.
Abstract
In Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court of India addressed a question of profound indigenous significance whether the death penalty, as handed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, breached Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India. Delivered in 1980, the Court’s ruling upheld the indigenous validity of capital discipline but made its duty subject to an exceptionally high threshold — the” rarest of rare” test. This doctrine now serves as a guiding principle in capital sentencing, aiming to circumscribe arbitrary and devilish use of the death penalty. The case marked a vital moment in the elaboration of Indian lawless law and remains a foundation of sentencing justice.
Use of Legal Jargon
The Bachan Singh case engages with core indigenous doctrines
Composition 21( Right to Life and Personal Liberty) It guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life or particular liberty except according to” procedure established by law”. The Court examined whether this” procedure” must be fair, just, and reasonable.
Composition 14( Right to Equality) This was scrutinized in light of the voluntary nature of death penalty sentencing, potentially leading to unstable treatment of also deposited individualities.
Composition 19( Freedom of Speech and Expression, etc.) Although lower central, the petitioner argued that capital discipline restricts freedoms without sufficient defense.
The ruling also intersects with several jurisprudential doctrines
Doctrine of proportionality corrections must be comparable to the crime.
Due process of law( implicitly interpreted) Inspired by American justice, this was examined in thepost- Maneka Gandhi period.
Judicial discretion in sentencing The Court had to determine whether voluntary powers were adequately guided by law.
Factual Background
Bachan Singh was previously condemned and doomed to life imprisonment for the murder of his kin. After his release, he committed another brutal murder, this time killing three members of his family. The trial court condemned him under Section 302 IPC and awarded the death penalty. The High Court vindicated this discipline on appeal. The matter also reached the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition, raising a indigenous challenge to the death penalty.
The central argument advanced by the suppliant was that the duty of the death penalty, as a selection to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC, was unconstitutional and unfair.
Legal Issues Raised
1. Whether the death penalty as a discipline under Section 302 of the IPC is unconstitutional under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
2. Whether the discretion granted on judges in choosing between life imprisonment and death results in
arbitrary sentencing.
3. What are the indigenous parameters that must guide the duty of the death judgment?
Arguments of the Petitioner
The petitioner contended that Section 302 IPC violates Composition 14 due to the absence of any legislative guidelines for determining when the death penalty should be assessed, leading to arbitrary and discriminational operation.
Under Composition 21, the right to life is a fundamental right, and its deprivation through death penalty is neither fair, just, nor reasonable, especially given the lack of procedural safeguards.
The penalty violates Composition 19( 1)( a) to( g) as it curtails all freedoms upon execution, and there is no compelling state interest justifying analogous extreme curtailment in a popular society.
The sentencing discretion granted to judges is unguided and unchannelled, leading to distant sentencing issues for similar offenses.
Arguments of the State
The State argument made by the state was that the death penalty is sanctioned by law, and its constitutionality had formerly been upheld in the before case of Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P.( 1973).
Judicial discretion is n’t unfettered but is exercised after hearing both prosecution and defense during the sentencing phase.
The legislative intent behind Section 302 IPC is clear capital discipline should be reserved for the most heinous crimes.
The argument that the death penalty is constitutionally unconstitutional is n’t supported by precedent or legislative history.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
The regional validity of the death penalty was upheld by the Supreme Court under Section 302 IPC by a 41 maturity. The maturity opinion was delivered by Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, with judges A.C. Gupta, N.L. Untwalia, and P.N. Shinghal concurring.
Pivotal Findings
Death penalty is indigenous Section 302 IPC does n’t violate Articles 14, 19, or 21.
The sentencing judge must consider aggravating and mitigating factors, both of the crime and the lawless, before deciding on capital discipline.
Justice Bhagwati’s Dissent
Justice P.N. Bhagwati differed strongly. His main points were
The death penalty is arbitrary and discriminational, constantly told by the social and profitable background of the criminated.
No clear criteria is presently in real to determine which cases earn capital discipline.
The system fails to count the possibility of judicial error.
The death penalty is n’t a hindrance and is therefore gratuitous.
He concluded that capital discipline is unconstitutional under Articles 14 and 21.
Doctrine of “Rarest of Rare”
In simple terms, the doctrine means that death penalty should only be used as a last resort, when no other punishment would do justice to the crime. It’s not just about how gruesome the crime was but also about the circumstances of the offender.
Guidelines for Application
Sentencing should be based on individualized assessment of the crime and criminal.
Aggravating factors: Premeditation, brutality, multiple victims, public servants as victims, etc.
Mitigating factors: Age, mental health, possibility of reform, provocation, and socio-economic background.
Further clarification for this doctrine were made in Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983)
It explained that death penalty could be justified in cases that: Are committed in a horrifying or brutal way Are driven by greed, revenge, or hatred Involve victims who are especially vulnerable Result in widespread fear or societal shock This case helped judges apply the Bachan Singh doctrine with more clarity
Comparative Constitutional Law Perspective
The Bachan Singh decision has to be contextualized within international legal systems:
United States: Death penalty remains constitutional but under strict procedural safeguards (Gregg v. Georgia).
United Kingdom: Capital punishment abolished for all crimes by 1998.
Canada: Abolished in 1976.
South Africa: Declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court in S v. Makwanyane (1995).
India’s approach remains cautious retentionism, keeping the death penalty on the books but limiting its use.
Post-Bachan Singh Jurisprudence
Several judgments have reaffirmed or modified the principles laid down in Bachan Singh:
Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983): Expanded on the “rarest of rare” framework by categorizing types of murder deserving capital punishment.
Santosh Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra (2009): Criticized inconsistency in applying Bachan Singh, stressing the need for principled sentencing.
Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014): It held that a delay in mercy petitions provides a ground for commutation.
Mithu v. State of Punjab (1983): Listed down mandatory death penalty under Section 303 IPC.
Criticism and Support
Criticism
Lack of clarity in what constitutes “rarest of rare” has led to subjective application.
Socio-economic bias: Most convicts on death row come from poor and marginalized communities.
Risks of miscarriage of justice in capital punishment cases are high.
Death penalty may not be a proven deterrent.
Support
Provides closure to victims’ families.
Acts as deterrence in gruesome crimes like terrorism, rape-murders.
Retaining capital punishment is considered necessary for national security and public order.
Conclusion
The Bachan Singh case represents a delicate constitutional compromise—recognizing the State’s authority to impose the death penalty while insisting on stringent conditions for its application. It places human dignity and the right to life at the center of criminal jurisprudence, aligning Indian law with evolving global standards of justice and proportionality.
Though upheld, the death penalty’s application has become increasingly rare, with courts preferring life imprisonment in most cases. The judgment continues to be a subject of academic inquiry and judicial reflection, standing as a testament to India’s complex and evolving legal system.
FAQS
1. List out the importance of the Bachan Singh case.
It confirmed the constitutionality of the death penalty in India and introduced the doctrine of “rarest of rare” which drastically narrowed the scope for its imposition.
2. What is the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine?
A principle that mandates capital punishment should only be imposed when the alternative (life imprisonment) is unquestionably foreclosed.
3. What is the key disagreement in the case?
Justice Bhagwati dissented, holding that the death penalty is arbitrary, violates Articles 14 and 21, and should be abolished.
4. Has the death penalty been abolished in India?
No, but its application is extremely rare and strictly regulated post-Bachan Singh.
5. How has the judgment impacted subsequent jurisprudence?
It shaped all later capital punishment cases, introduced detailed sentencing guidelines, and has led to a cautious, principled application of the death penalty.
