Author: Shobha Tiwari, Student At City Group Of Colleges, Lucknow
To the Point
Approximately 70 % of the countries agree for the abolition of death punishment .
But 30 % of the countries where death punishment are still valid
In India also the death penalty is still legally valid.
The Bachan Singh v. The State of Punjab case (AIR 1980 SC 898) is a watershed moment in Indian criminal jurisprudence. It constitutionally validated the death penalty in “rarest of rare” cases under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, while aligning it with Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. The judgment crafted a judicial doctrine that significantly influenced sentencing in capital punishment cases.
In 1980 in the Bachan Singh case for the first time it challenged the constitutionality of the death punishment .
And also question about the violation of Article 21 Right to life
And Article 13 which lays down that any section of the laws which violates the fundamental Right are to be considered as null and void
Use of Legal Jargon
Capital Punishment
Doctrine of “Rarest of Rare”
Constitutional Validity
Judicial Review
Right to Life
Reformation Theory
Discretionary Power of the Court
Violation of fundamental Rights
Arbitrariness and Due Process
Mitigating and Aggravating Circumstances
Constitutionality of the death punishment
The Proof
The court upheld the constitutional validity of the death penalty under Section 302 Indian penal code and under section 101 Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and Section 354(3) Cr.pc., under section 453 in Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023
It emphasized that capital punishment must be an exceptional punishment applied only in the rarest of rare instances.
Five judges of the beach were constituted
Y. V.chandrachud ( CJI)
A.O. kaushal
P.N. Bhagwati
R.S. Sarkaria
A.P. sen
Because it was a question about the constitutional validity of Article 21 and death Punishment
The decision comes in 4:1
Four judges passed the decision in favour of death discipline to bachan Singh
And says there is no violation of Article 21
In Macchi Singh case court passed the guidelines for death punishment that in the rarest of the rare case the death sentence shall be passed
Justice P.N. Bhagwati
Is not in the favour of the decision he says that death sentence is the violation of Article 21
And the Bachan Singh case is not the rarest of the rare cases.
The decision limited judicial discretion and affirmed the death penalty’s compatibility with the fundamental right to life under Article 21, provided it is not imposed arbitrarily.
Abstract
The case of Bachan Singh v. The State of Punjab (1980) stands as a constitutional cornerstone in Indian criminal law, particularly concerning capital punishment. This judgment came after the Supreme Court revisited its earlier stance in Rajendra Prasad v. State of UP (1979), where the death penalty was viewed as constitutionally impermissible in most circumstances. The court in Bachan Singh overruled this, asserting that the death penalty is constitutionally valid if implemented under strictly regulated circumstances. The landmark ruling introduced the “rarest of rare” doctrine, which serves as the guiding principle for Indian courts while awarding capital punishment. It upheld the balance between the gravity of the crime, societal interests, and the convict’s right to life, thus harmonizing penal statutes with constitutional mandates.
Case Laws
1. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1980 SC 898)
The Supreme Court held that the death penalty is constitutionally valid under Section 302 IPC, provided it is awarded only in the “rarest of rare” cases.
The judgment laid down guiding principles for courts to decide when to impose capital punishment.
2. Rajendra Prasad v. State of UP (1979 AIR 916)
Preceding Bachan Singh, this judgment cast doubt on the validity of the death penalty, advocating for reformation over retribution.
This view was overruled in Bachan Singh.
3. Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983 AIR 957)
Built upon Bachan Singh, offering a more structured framework to apply the “rarest of rare” doctrine.
It categorized specific types of murder that could qualify for capital punishment.
4. Jagmohan Singh v. State of UP (AIR 1973 SC 947)
An earlier precedent that upheld the validity of the death penalty, stating that due process is followed under Indian law.
In this case the court set the stage for the Bachan Singh case to elaborate the constitutional limitation.
Conclusion
The decision in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab stands as a critical judicial milestone, striking a balance between individual rights and societal interest. By upholding the constitutional validity of the death penalty in a limited and carefully scrutinized manner, the judgment introduced judicial discipline in capital sentencing. The “rarest of rare” doctrine acts as a constitutional safeguard against arbitrary imposition of death penalties and reinforces the sanctity of Article 21—the right to life. It remains a guiding precedent for death sentence jurisprudence in India and continues to influence penal policies and judicial discretion.
Still the argument is continuing regarding the abolition of death punishment in India.
FAQ
Q1. What was the main issue in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab?
Ans: The primary issue was whether the death penalty under Section 302 IPC violates the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The court ruled that it does not, handed it’s awarded in the “ rarest of rare ” cases.
Q2. What is the “rarest of rare” doctrine?
Ans: It is a judicial principle evolved in Bachan Singh which limits the application of the death penalty to only those cases where life imprisonment is insufficient and the crime shocks the collective conscience of society.
Q3. How did this case affect the death penalty jurisprudence in India?
Ans: It constitutionally validated the death penalty but imposed strict criteria for its imposition, thereby reducing its indiscriminate use and aligning it with fundamental rights.
Q4. Is the death penalty still legally valid in India?
Ans: Yes, but following the Bachan Singh ruling, it can only be awarded in exceptional cases that meet the threshold of “rarest of rare” and after individualized sentencing.
Q5. How does this case relate to Article 21 of the Constitution?
Ans: The Supreme Court interpreted Article 21 to mean that the right to life can be curtailed only by due process of law. The death penalty, under strictly regulated circumstances, does not violate this article.
