Author- Sonali Yadav from Asian Law College
To The Point
Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is a legal form of punishment in India, awarded in the “rarest of rare” cases. Governed primarily by the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), it is imposed for heinous crimes such as murder, terrorism, and rape involving extreme brutality. The Supreme Court has laid down strict guidelines to ensure fair trial and proportionality in awarding the death sentence. While it remains constitutionally valid under Article 21, the debate over its morality, effectiveness, and potential for miscarriage of justice continues to spark legal and public discourse in India. Capital punishment remains one of the most morally complex and legally consequential sanctions. Governments justify it as a means of delivering justice and deterring violent crime, while critics denounce it as irreversible, flawed, and often unjust. India has consistently walked a fine line between upholding the sanctity of life under Article 21 of the Constitution and enabling the death sentence for particularly heinous crimes, such as terrorism, rape of minors, and murder with exceptional brutality. Although international momentum has steadily moved towards abolition, India has retained the death penalty while embedding significant procedural and judicial safeguards.
In recent years, major legal developments including the enactment of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) have reaffirmed the state’s power to impose capital punishment. These changes have expanded the list of offences that can attract the death sentence, such as mob lynching, terrorism, and sexual crimes against children, further intensifying the national debate over its ethical, legal, and human rights implications.
Abstract
Capital punishment, or the death penalty, remains one of the most debated aspects of India’s criminal justice system. Rooted in both colonial legacy and indigenous traditions of retribution, the Indian legal framework retains the death penalty for the “rarest of rare” cases, as established in the landmark case Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980). Under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), capital punishment is prescribed for crimes such as murder, terrorism-related offences, rape resulting in death or vegetative state, and certain drug and anti-national activities. Despite its legality, the use of capital punishment has been increasingly scrutinized on moral, constitutional, and human rights grounds. Critics argue that it disproportionately affects the poor and marginalized, often influenced by flaws in investigation and trial procedures. The Supreme Court has emphasized due process and judicial discretion in awarding death sentences, yet public and political pressures continue to shape its application. Moreover, India’s international obligations and human rights advocacy prompt ongoing discussions about its abolition. This abstract provides a concise overview of the legal basis, ethical debates, and evolving judicial trends concerning capital punishment in India, highlighting the need for a balanced approach that ensures both justice and human dignity. Capital punishment remains one of the most morally complex and legally consequential sanctions. Governments justify it as a means of delivering justice and deterring violent crime, while critics denounce it as irreversible, flawed, and often unjust.
Use Of Legal Jargon
Constitutional Provision – Article 21: Capital punishment must adhere to the “procedure established by law” as per Article 21. The right to life can be curtailed only through fair, just, and reasonable legal procedure.
Indian Penal Code (IPC):
Section 376A: Punishment for causing death or persistent vegetative state in rape cases death penalty possible.
Section 364A: Kidnapping for ransom with threat to life punishable with death.
Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC):
Section 235(2): Before sentencing, the accused must be heard (principle of natural justice).
Section 416: If a woman sentenced to death is pregnant, the sentence may be commuted.
Judicial Doctrine: “Rarest of Rare” (Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, 1980):
Death penalty must be awarded only in the rarest of rare cases where alternative punishment is unquestionably inadequate.
Presidential Powers – Article 72:
Allows mercy petitions to the President after all legal remedies are exhausted.
The Proof
In India, capital punishment remains a legal penalty, awarded only in the “rarest of rare” cases. The report highlights systemic delays, poor legal representation, and socio-economic vulnerabilities among death row inmates.
Another crucial study by Amnesty International and the Law Commission of India (Report No. 262, 2015) found that capital punishment is disproportionately imposed on the poor, minorities, and marginalized groups.
Further, the Centre on the Death Penalty has revealed that more than 74% of death row convicts are economically disadvantaged, and around 76% did not complete school, indicating inequality in access to justice.
These reports suggest that India’s capital punishment system is fraught with arbitrariness, and calls for reform are growing louder within legal and human rights circles.
Case Laws
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684
Facts: Bachan Singh was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the brutal murder of his wife and he was again accused and convicted for the murder of three of his relatives, including a minor, and was awarded the death penalty by the trial court. The High Court confirmed the sentence. The appeal before the Supreme Court challenged the constitutionality of the death penalty itself under Article 21 (Right to Life) of the Indian Constitution. The case was referred to a larger constitutional bench because it raised serious questions about whether the death penalty, as provided under Section 302 IPC, was constitutionally valid.
Issue: Whether the death penalty under Section 302 IPC violates Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution, and if it can be constitutionally upheld.
Judgment
The Supreme Court held that capital punishment is not unreasonable or arbitrary and does not violate Article 21, as long as it is imposed following the “procedure established by law.” The Court ruled that the imposition of a death sentence must only be in exceptional circumstances where the alternative option (life imprisonment) is unquestionably foreclosed. It emphasized that judges must balance aggravating and mitigating factors before awarding the death penalty. This case set the foundation for the restrictive application of capital punishment and gave judicial discretion a structured framework. In this case the doctrine of rarest of the rare case has been laid down.
Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) 3SCC 470
Facts: The case arose from a gruesome massacre in the villages of Punjab, involving 17 murders committed in a single night. The murders were driven by a long-standing family feud and revenge against another family, the relatives of one Amar Singh. The victims included women and children, some of whom were brutally attacked while asleep in their homes. The accused appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the sentence of capital punishment on the grounds that it violated the constitutional protection under Article 21.
Issue: What constitutes a “rarest of rare case” justifying the imposition of capital punishment?
Judgment:
The Court elaborated on Bachan Singh and classified certain categories of crimes where death penalty could be justified, e.g., manner of commission, motive, anti-social nature of crime, magnitude of crime, and personality of victim. In this case, multiple murders in a pre-planned manner justified the death sentence. The Court upheld the death sentence in this case due to the brutal mass killings committed by the accused, which shocked the conscience of society. The Court concluded that the mass murders executed by Machhi Singh, with deliberate planning, involved exceptional cruelty and scale, and thus shocked the collective conscience of society.
Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal (1994) 2 SCC 220
Facts: On March 5, 1990, he was accused of raping and murdering a 14-year-old schoolgirl named Hetal Parekh in her flat. Evidence presented at trial included witness testimony, circumstantial evidence, and medical reports indicating rape followed by strangulation.
Dhananjoy fled the scene after the crime but was arrested months later. The trial court convicted him under Sections 302 (murder), 376 (rape), and 380 (theft) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to death. The High Court upheld the verdict. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court for a final review.
Issue: Whether death penalty was justified for rape and murder of a minor girl by a security guard in a school.
Judgment: The Supreme Court confirmed the death sentence, stating that the crime was particularly brutal and showed no remorse. The accused, a school guard, had betrayed trust and committed rape and murder of an innocent 14-year-old girl. The Court held that leniency would be misplaced and would undermine public confidence in justice. This case reinforced the idea that heinous sexual crimes could warrant capital punishment. The Court stated that the heinousness of the crime, particularly the rape and murder of a minor girl, shocked the conscience of society. Given the nature and gravity of the offence, the Court ruled that life imprisonment would be inadequate.
Conclusion
Capital punishment in India remains one of the most debated aspects of criminal justice. While the Supreme Court has upheld its constitutionality, it has also emphasized the doctrine of the “rarest of rare” to restrict its arbitrary use. The death penalty serves as a deterrent and a tool of retributive justice, yet its moral, legal, and practical relevance is increasingly questioned in a modern, rights-based democracy. India’s commitment to human rights under constitutional and international frameworks makes it imperative to reconsider the utility and fairness of such an irreversible punishment. Several instances of wrongful convictions, prolonged delays in execution, and socio-economic biases in sentencing have raised concerns about the equitable administration of the death penalty. In conclusion, India stands at a crucial juncture where it must balance justice for victims with the rights of the accused. A move towards abolishing the death penalty, coupled with stronger life imprisonment frameworks, may reflect a more humane, reformative, and just legal system for the future.
FAQs
Q1. Is capital punishment legal in India?
Ans-Yes, capital punishment is legal in India and is awarded in the “rarest of rare” cases as per the Supreme Court’s guideline in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980).
Q2. What are the crimes punishable by death?
Ans-Crimes like murder under aggravated circumstances (IPC Section 302), terrorism-related offences, rape resulting in death or vegetative state, and repeat offences under POCSO Act may attract the death penalty.
Q3. Who has the power to pardon a death sentence?
Ans- The President of India (under Article 72) and the Governor of a state (under Article 161) can grant pardons or commute death sentences.
Q4. What is the procedure after a death sentence is awarded?
Ans- After a trial court awards the death penalty, it must be confirmed by the High Court. The convict can then appeal to the Supreme Court and file a mercy petition.
Q5. Has India abolished capital punishment?
Ans-No. While many countries have abolished it, India retains it as a deterrent for heinous crimes, though it is rarely used.
Q6. What is a mercy petition?
It’s a plea to the President or Governor seeking pardon or commutation of the death sentence based on humanitarian grounds.
References
lawbhoomi.com/constitutional-validity-of-death-penalty-or-capital-punishment-in-india/ https://share.google/QhyQKodkzUT9pSQHG
Death Penalty in India: Rarest of Rare Doctrine Explained https://share.google/ERKyxERI7ZgUEf18P
An Overview of Capital Punishment In India https://share.google/MSMTjL7KEkCZ6PA0j
