Author: Bhavika Dhuria, Chandigarh University
Linkedin Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/bhavika-dhuria-6b20b7340?utm_source=share&utm_campaign=share_via&utm_content=profile&utm_medium=ios_app
Abstract
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab [(1980) 2 SCC 684; AIR 1980 SC 898] is a landmark judgement delivered by the Apex court of India which held the validity of the death penalty given under the law. The judgment of the Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab was given by a 5 judge bench by a special petition. In this case it was held that the death penalty given under the section 302 of The Indian penal code(IPC), 1860 is constitutional and can be awarded to a person and it does not violate the fundamental rights which are given under the constitution of India. In this case the 5 judge bench discovered the Principle of rarest of the rare which says that the death penalty can be given to a person and it is totally constitutional but it can only be given in the cases where other punishments cannot provide the justice to the victim and other punishments are not fair and equitable. This judgement provided the constitutionality of the death penalty (capital punishment) in the cases where other punishments are not adequate.
To the Point
The title of the case was Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab [(1980) 2 SCC 684; AIR 1980 SC 898] which was decided on may,9,1980 by a 5 judge constitutional bench including Y.V. Chandrachud, N.L. Untwalia, P.N. Bhagwati, R.S. Sarkaria, A.C. Gupta who lays down the constitutionality of the capital punishment given under the section 302 IPC. The case incudes:
Historical background of the case: Bachan Singh had a terrible criminal history that he was accused of murder of his wife previously and had been convicted for the murder of his wife and was punished for 14 years in a prison and after the 14 year when he released from the prison he started to live with his cousin’s family where the incident occurred on July,4, 1977 he murdered three children of his cousin with an axe. The murders were done in such manner which was very terrified. Bachan Singh was appeared before the session court where he was convicted with the death penalty under section 302(punishment for murder) of the Indian Penal code (IPC),1860.
Later he filed an appeal in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana where High court continued the decision of the Session Court of the death penalty and awarded death penalty to the appellate Bachan Singh for the crime done by him.
After the decision of High Court, Bachan Singh appealed before the Supreme Court of India involved the question about the constitutionality of the death sentencing in the constitution of India and the violation of fundamental rights which are provided by the constitution of India.
Issues raised before the supreme court: There were many issues raised before the supreme court relating to the validation of death penalty which were:
Whether the death penalty given under the section 302 of IPC has a constitutional validity as it violate the article 21 which told us about the right to life of a person and personal freedom of a person under the constitution of India as a fundamental right.
Whether the provision provided under section 354(3) of Criminal procedure code (Cr.p.c),1973 is unconstitutional.
Use of Legal Jargon
In the case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab , the Supreme Court held that the constitutionality of the death penalty and other legal things which are provided below:
1.Constitutionality of the capital punishment: As the issue involved in this case that whether the death penalty is constitutional as it violates the fundamental rights of a person, the supreme court held that the death penalty given under section 302 is constitutional and it does not violate any fundamental right of o person. As the Article 21 describe about the right to life and personal liberty but it also provide that it can be taken back according to the procedure provided by the law and there was also a question before the law about the procedure given under section 354(3) of the criminal procedure code, 1973 which states the if the sentence of death is given then the judges should give the special reason for giving such punishment.
2. Rarest of the rare doctrine: This rarest of the rare doctrine states that the capital punishment(death penalty) shall only be given in such circumstances where other punishments does not provide adequate relief to the victim. This doctrine restricts the imposing of death punishment in some rarest situations only.
3.Ratio decidendi : ratio decidendi (binding principle of a judgement) in this case was that the death penalty was constitutional and can be awarded to a person in such cases and does not violate any fundamental rights.
4.Constitutional bench: The constitutional bench in the case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab was a 5 judge bench which included Justices Y.V. Chandrachud, P.N. Bhagwati, N.L. Untwalia, A.C. Gupta, and R.S. Sarkaria.
The Proof
In the case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab,1980 the plaintiff Bachan Singh was accused of murdering a person and was convicted for 14 years in prison after being released he again committed a series of murders of his own relatives. The session court awarded him with death sentence which was upheld by the High Court and later appealed to the supreme court on the base that the death penalty is constitutional or not. He approached the supreme court via the special leave petition (SLP) and claimed the constitutionality of the death penalty.
The constitutional challenge in this judgement was the whether the death punishment under the section 302 of IPC violates the fundamental rights given under the constitution of India. according to the judges that the death penalty given under section 302 IPC is constitutional and does not violate any right. The appellate states that the capital punishment violates:
Article 14: states about the equality before the law for everyone.
Article 19: provides the freedom of speech, movement and personal freedom.
Article 21: right to life and personal liberty
The court states that capital punishment does not breach the fundamental rights given under the constitution of India.
The judgement of the validity of the death penalty was given in the majority of 4:1 and it involve the doctrine of rarest of the rare in the Indian law and states that the fundamental rights given under article 14 and 19 is not fully given to the person.
Case Law
1.Precedent
2.Post Bachan Singh case
1.Precedents:
Jagmohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1973) 1 SCC 20: In this case the constitutionality of death penalty was challenged saying that it violates the article 21. In this case the death penalty was given to the accused stating that after a fair trial and for the meet of justice the death penalty does not violates the article 21.
Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248: in this case it was held that the procedure established by the law under article 21 must be fair, just and reasonable.
2. Post Bachan Singh case :
Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) 3 SCC 470 : In this case the accused bruntally killed several family members of a same family and the judges upheld the doctrine of the rarest of the rare and laid down the circumstances in which the doctrine will be applied.
Navneet Kaur v. State of NCT of Delhi (2014) 7 SCC 264: In this case the commuted the death penalty of the accused Devinder pal Singh Bhullar due to mental illness and delay.
Union of India v. V. Sriharan (2016) 7 SCC 1: In this case it was held that judiciary has authority to impose life sentence beyond 14 years without any remission
Though Bachan Singh is an Indian case, its rationale holds true from the perspective of international human rights standards, such as the UN Safeguards Guaranteeing Protection of the Rights of Those Facing the Death Penalty, since they all emphasise limiting capital punishment only to the most heinous crimes under procedural safeguards.
Conclusion
The Bachan Singh judgement in the India is an important judgement in the Indian judiciary system which engaged he principle of rarest of the rare in the Indian law and provide the constitutional validity to the death penalty in India in such circumstances where no other punishment is appropriate to meet the end of justice and fairness. This case said that the death penalty or the capital punishment does not violate any fundamental right as said under the case. In this case the guidelines for the death penalty was provided and ensure that the reason for the death penalty will also be provided to the person. This case provide a balance between the retributive justice and constitutional validity and the supreme court of India also said that the sentencing the death penalty is not an arbitrarily.
This case provides the constitutional validity to the capital punishment and broader the aspect of the judiciary in the sentencing power.
FAQS
In which case the doctrine of rarest of the rare discovered in the Indian law?
In the case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab the doctrine of rarest of the rare case discovered in the Indian law.
2. Define the doctrine of rarest of the rare?
The doctrine of rarest of the rare in which it was held that the capital punishment can only be given in the case where other sentence is not right to meet the end of justice.
3. What is the difference between obiter dicta and ratio decidendi?
Ratio decidendi is known as the binding principles which is binding upon the lower courts where the obiter dicta is the observation made by the judges in a court proceeding and not legally binding.
4. Whom did Bachan Singh call for decision- considering the same; it was suggested.
The 5 judge bench was constituted for the decision for the validity of the death penalty in India, the bench involved the judges Y.V. Chandrachud, N.L. Untwalia, P.N. Bhagwati, R.S. Sarkaria, A.C. Gupta.
5. What was held by the court in the case Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab ?
The 5 judges bench held in the Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab that the death punishment is not unconstitutional and it does not violate any rights under the constitution of India.
