Author: Shreyanshi Patra, Madhusudan Law University, Cuttack, Odisha
To The Point
Capital punishment or death penalty still exist in India but is treated as an exception and not a general rule of punishment. While constitution of India guarantees Right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. This Article is a fundamental right but has reasonable restrictions i.e. there can be an outright cancellations in respect to public interest enforced by legal, just and fair procedure, “procedure established by law” and “due process of law” are the two important concepts of Article 21. The reasonable restrictions mentioned above must be fair, just and reasonable in nature. capital punishment is all very debatable concept of criminal jurisprudence as it is somehow inconsistent with the Right to life that is Article 21 of Indian constitution, but capital punishment acts exception to that is the term used in the Article except by the “procedure established by law” Which act as reasonable restriction too the Article. The Supreme Court through its interpretations on constitutionality of capital punishment has upheld certain restriction to the application of death penalty through the doctrine of the “Rarest of rare cases”.
According to this doctrine death penalty must be imposed only in the exceptional circumstances based on public interest. This limit was set by the Supreme Court through its judicial interpretations specifically in the case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, In this case the doctrine of “rarest of rare cases” emerged. Destruct rail strikes a balance between right to life and justice that demands deprivation of this right. This doctrine states that the death penalty should be imposed only in the exceptional circumstances where the crime is so heinous that punishment of life imprisonment also is insufficient to meet the ends of justice. This Article aims to explain the consistency of doctrine of “rarest of rare cases” with right to life under Article 21 of Indian constitution.
Abstract
Article 21, i.e. Right to life and personal liberty gained significant strength after the landmark judgement in Maneka Gandhi V. Union Of India, where the term procedure established by law was given high emphasis, it was held at depriving person from his life or liberty must be through the procedure established by law that must be just, fair and reasonable and not arbitrary or oppressive. As capital punishment is inconsistent to right to life the interpretation of the term procedure established by law which plays the role of a bridge between the capital punishment and right to life and the doctrine of rarest of rare cases strikes balance between them. The Supreme Court has consistently held that death penalty must be imposed only in the rare situation where the offence is so heinous that life imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed and found to be wholly inadequate, and thus this requires proper judicial review.
Use of Legal Jargon
In Indian criminal jurisprudence capital punishment popularly known as death penalty is such a form of penal sanction that is considered the most severe one among the sanctions. This gives utmost power to the state to take away the life of the person convicted with death penalty but with the “procedure established by law” i.e. it must be just, fair and reasonable. The Supreme Court through its judicial interpretations has consistently increased the rarest of rare doctrine. This doctrine plays a crucial role in Indian criminal jurisprudence. Capital punishment is subjected to certain judicial scrutiny. The death penalty can only be imposed in the rarest of rare cases that is the offense is so heinous that life imprisonment is not adequate to meet the ends of justice. This doctrine is such a crucial sentencing principle that strikes a balance between Article 21 and capital punishment and it mandates judicial scrutiny. This doctrine acts as an exception to Right to life. This punishment depends on the nature and brutality of the offence and the gravity circumstances which includes factors like impact of crime on society. This traditional discretion must be exercised within the boundaries of procedure established by law. The court must adhere to the principle of natural justice and constitutional safeguards.
The Proof
The scope and validity of capital punishment is founded on judicial interpretation beyond the legislative intent alone. The constitutional acceptance of death penalty is limited to the safeguards under Article 21 it involves careful judicial application of mind. The case of Bachan Singh V. State of Punjab, where the doctrine of “rarest of rare cases” emerged and the case of Maneka Gandhi V. Union of India, where the scope of Article 21 was given great emphasis plays a crucial role in the matter involving though question of consistency of death penalty with Article 21.
The doctrine ensures that capital punishment is an exception and not a general rule so the failure to follow the procedure established by law in sentencing process would amount to the violation of Article 21. The doctrine states that the right to life is beyond a fundamental right it has great importance and it cannot be taken away unless required necessarily meeting the ends of justice.
Case Laws
Maneka Gandhi V. Union Of India (1978).
In this case the Supreme Court of India held that The procedure established by law it used an Article 21 must be fair, just and reasonable and not arbitrary in nature .
Jagmohan Singh V. State of UP (1973).
Capital punishment is not violative to right to life if exercised according to the procedure established by law.
Bachan Singh V. State of Punjab (1980).
This case is the landmark judgement and laid the foundation of the rarest of rare doctrine. That penalty is an exception and not a general rule.
Macchi Singh V. State of Punjab (1983).
Clarified the doctrine by stating factors that would contribute to death penalty as justified sanction .The factors are as such brutal crimes, heinous nature, vulnerability of the victim and it’s impact in the society.
Santosh Kumar Bariyar V. State of Maharashtra (2009).
The court held that sentencing off death penalty should not be individually focused on the crime but also the criminals. It criticised the application of doctrine and demanded reformative justice.
Conclusion
The Doctrine of rarest of rare is a conscious judicial effort to balance right to life guaranteed under Article 21 and the state’s obligation to punish the most heinous and brutal crimes with the death penalty. By restricting the scope of capital punishment to exceptional circumstances the judiciary has forestalled the use of death penalty as a routine or arbitrary form of punishment. This doctrine therefore balances the right to life often individual guaranteed under Article 21 and demands of justice in extraordinary cases. Therefore the court must apply the rarest of rare doctrine with utmost caution, restraint, and compassion ensuring that deprivation of life remains an absolute last resort. Such an approach is essential to uphold the constitutional values of justice, fairness, and human dignity that lie at the heart of Article 21.
FAQS
What does the rest of their doctrine mean?
The latest of rare doctrine means the exceptional circumstances there the death penalty is imposed by the state where the crime is so heinous that the punishment of life imprisonment would be inadequate to meet the ends of justice.
Factors that constitute exceptional cases for applicability of rarest of rare doctrine?
The factors that constitutes exceptional cases for applicability of this doctrine the nature and brutality of the crime, vulnerability of the victim and impact of the crime in the society.
Role of rarest of rare doctrine in Indian criminal Jurisprudence as well as Indian society?
The rarest of rare doctrine is a very crucial concept of Indian criminal jurisprudence which pays the role of a bridge between Article 21 of the Indian constitution and Capital punishment in India it basically strikes a balance between them.
