Author: Aadrikaa Thakur, Indian Institute of Management, Rohtak
ABSTRACT
The death penalty, or capital punishment, is a largely maundered subject in the field of criminal law Due to its very nature. In India, it is legitimized as a punishment for the worst kinds of crime and as a punishment to restore the equilibrium of social conscience. Questions continue to arise over the evidential value of capital punishment and its legitimacy as a legal principle. This article examines the constitutional framework, the judicial decisions of the courts, and the legitimacy of capital punishment in India. The death penalty as a means of crime deterrence or as a legitimate form of retribution will be interrogated.
INTRODUCTION
The Indian Criminal Justice system rests on two foundations: deterrence and reformation. It provides for the final punishment of death, but only for the “rarest of rare” cases Following the due procedure of law. The crux of the problem is finding the equilibrium between protecting individual human rights under Article 21 of the Constitution and protecting the public against serious crime (i.e., terrorism, extreme violence, rape, brutal murder) by punishing offenders in a more severe manner than a lesser crime.
The state argues that the death penalty has deterrent value, while opponents argue that capital punishment is inhumane; it violates the dignity of any human being, and the death penalty has not been shown to deter crime. Thus, the debate in jurisprudence is whether capital punishment is a necessary deterrent or is it merely institutionalized vengeance.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution grants the “right to life and personal liberty,” unless according to procedure established by law. The death penalty is not unconstitutional in itself but is subject to strict judicial review.
The President of India, under Article 72, and the governors under Article 161 may grant pardons, commutations, or reprieves.
It is common for death sentences to be challenged through Article 14 (right to equality) and Article 21 (right to life).
JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS AND CASE LAW
Rajendra Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1979)
Justice Krishna Iyer also stated that the death penalty should be imposed only in exceptional cases where the survival of society itself is threatened.
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980)
The Supreme Court laid down a principle called the “rarest of rare” doctrine and ruled that the death penalty can be imposed only if life imprisonment is insufficient or the act committed by the accused is such grave in nature that it cannot be proportionate with life imprisonment.
Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983)
The court amplified the explanation of the “rarest of rare” principle by outlining the aggravating factors, including manner of execution, motive, and magnitude of crime.
Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal (1994)
The Court confirmed the death sentence for rape and murder, stating that punishment was in by society’s demands for justice.
Yakub Abdul Razak Memon v. State of Maharashtra (2015)
In a terrorism case, the death penalty was justified as the act committed was grave in nature, and to restore confidence in the justice system.
Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014)
The Supreme Court stressed human dignity and ruled that excessive delay in exercising the death penalty could amount to a reason to commute.
THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT AND CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
Deterrent Theory – proponents state that the fear of death will deter others from engaging in similar conduct.
Retributive theory – Death is society’s moral retaliation against the offender.
Preventive Theory – This view advocates the elimination of the offender to protect society.
Reformative Theory – This theory argues against capital punishment because it denies the chance to reform the offender.
THE PROFF: DOES DEATH PENALTY DETER CRIMES IN INDIA
Empirical studies across jurisdictions have yet to show capital punishment as an effective deterrent against criminal recidivism.
Evidence from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) in India shows that over the past few years in India, where there is a death sentence enforced, it has had no appreciable effect on decreasing heinous crimes.
The Law Commission of India (262nd Report, 2015) stated that there appears to be no deterrent effect and recommended its abolition in all crimes, save for terrorism- relevant crimes made this clear.
Internationally, over 140 countries have completely abolished capital punishment, showing a distinctly renewed focus on reformative justice.
DEATH PENALTY AS RETRIBUTION: PUBLIC PERCEPTION VS LEGAL CONSCIENCE
Indian culture usually sees the death penalty as a moral solution for victims’ families, as shown by the public outrage and the social juridical start for capital punishment in the case of the 2012 Nirbhaya gang rape.
All of this being said, the opponents of retribution argue that it is simply legal retribution and has no rightful role in a modern constitutional democracy. While judges tend to take notice of public mood, the judiciary many times has warned not allow our passions act as a consideration in sentencing.
INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
The United States: Has the death penalty in some states, but the frequency of its use appears to be falling.
United Kingdom: Abolished the death penalty in 1965 because it was incompatible with human rights.
UN General Assembly: Has passed some motions encouraging countries to impose a moratorium on executions.
India: Is one of the few democracies that still with the death penalty.
CONLCUSION
In India, the death penalty exists as an exception to the rule of life imprisonment in criminal punishment in the world, except in the rarest of rare cases. However, there is evidence that it neither deters crime nor it persists based largely on public feelings of retribution.
A forward-thinking justice model emphasizes rehabilitation, reparation, and/or restorative justice, not retribution. India needs to consider whether the abolition of the death penalty is or isn’t constitutional, and whether it is or isn’t contrary to international human rights obligations.
FAQS
Q1: Is the death penalty constitutional in India?
The Supreme Court ruled in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) that the death penalty is constitutional, subject to the “rarest of rare” doctrine.
Q2: How is a death penalty carried out in India?
A death penalty in India is carried out by hanging under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Q3: Can a death penalty be commuted?
Yes, a death penalty can be commuted to a life sentence under Article 72 (President) and Article 161 (Governor).
Q4: How many people are on death row in India right now?
As of the latest NCRB reports, there are a few hundred convicts on death row in India, although there are very few executions.
Q5: Does the death penalty deter crime?
Empirical research has not shown that the death penalty deters crime. The Law Commission (2015) recommended the abolition of the death penalty, except for provisions relating to terrorist acts.
