Death Penalty In India- Constitutional Validity And Human Rights Concern

Zero Confirmations: The Supreme Court Has Not Upheld The Death Penalty In The Previous Three Years

The Supreme Court has not upheld the death penalty in the previous three years. In 2025, it acquitted 10 death row prisoners, the highest in a decade.

Trial Vs. Appellate Disconnect

Court Level	Observation
Sessions Courts	Handed down 128 death sentences in 2025 (1,310 since 2016).
High Courts	Confirmed only 31% of cases placed before them.

Death Row Surge

• As of Dec 2025, the death row population stands at 574 (highest since 2016).
• The average length of time incarcerated on death row prior to acquittal was more than five years.
• Some inmates had to wait almost ten years to be cleared.

Procedural Violations & Non-Compliance

According to the research, severe trial court errors resulting in unjust convictions and death sentences are exposed by frequent acquittals.

Supreme Court Guidelines On Sentencing

Supreme Court rulings in Manoj Vs State of Madhya Pradesh (2022) and Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. Union of India (2025) mandate psychological evaluations, prison conduct reports, and mitigation hearings.

Lack Of Compliance With Mandated Protections

• In 2025, almost 95% of death sentences were handed down without these protections.
• Sentencing sometimes took place a few days after conviction.
• This hindered serious defense preparation and raised questions about rights to a fair trial being violated.

Emerging Alternative Sentences

A growing number of courts are considering “life imprisonment without remission” or long fixed-term sentences (some up to 60 years) as a middle ground, which raises questions about whether these sentences allow for any kind of rehabilitation.

Introduction

One of the most contentious and archaic forms of punishment in practically every community is the death sentence. There are many disagreements in various rulings on the use of the death penalty in extremely rare cases. The goal of the research is to determine whether imposing this kind of punishment is it fair and just in the rarest of rare cases? Additionally, we must determine the criteria our justice uses to classify a certain criminal act in extremely uncommon cases. The qualitative investigation for the research adaptation is based on the rulings in various situations involving violent crimes.

The first two chapters are meant to give an overview, historical background, justifications, and current analysis of death punishment in extremely rare instances in India and other nations.[1] The literature review and indications of the death penalty are covered in the next two chapters. Finally, but just as importantly, the core of this study, which was founded on the Doctrine of the Rarest of Rare examples, deals with a number of examples in order to determine the study’s purpose.

The study examined whether the jury’s judgments in these horrible acts were made with the general public in mind and came to the conclusion that, in the rarest of rare cases, the death penalty is reasonable and equitable. According to the study, even if the judiciary has the authority to impose the death penalty, it must do so in accordance with popular desire so that people can live in safety and without fear.

Death Penalty Debate In India

Since India is a democratic nation that upholds human rights, there has been a lot of discussion over the death penalty lately. In Bacchan Singh v. State of Punjab[2], the judge who imposed the death penalty, the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty must be used in cases of savage murder or most heinous crimes where the doctrine of the rarest of rare cases applies.

However, how can the death penalty be applied in a nation that used to support human rights when it violates fundamental human rights? There have been numerous discussions around the world between jurists, attorneys, administrators, social activists, law commissions, and legal reformers on whether or not to abolish the death sentence (Ahmed, 2002)[3].

In India, the death penalty is a useful tool to put an end to horrific offenses against the community. The threat of receiving the death penalty deters criminals from committing crimes, according to the deterrent effect of the death penalty.

International Perspective On Death Penalty

According to the United Nations Assembly’s International Scenario, the death penalty needs to be applied fairly everywhere. Fair, just, and reasonable procedures shall be adhered to (UN Charter, 1948).[4]

For instance, in its resolution no. 15 of 1996, the United Nations Economic and Social Council (UNESC[5]) urged its members to abolish the death penalty and suggested that nations that previously applied the death penalty be given a prompt and equitable hearing before being charged (UNESC, 1996).

Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that no one shall be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, according to the Human Rights Act of 1948. The Indian Constitution’s Article 21 guarantees every Indian citizen the right to life and personal liberty, as well as the right to survive.

According to Article 7 of the 1966[6] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, no one may be tortured or to inhumane, brutal, or humiliating treatment or penalty.

India is a member of the United Nations. As a result of the UN’s appeal, 120 nations have outlawed this penalty, and a few more have ceased carrying out executions, but we are in the minority. There are 73 countries in the globe which are still maintaining capital punishment in the statute book and India is also one among them, however it does not provide death penalty only in rarest of rare circumstances.

Historical Evolution Of Capital Punishment

The death penalty is a long-standing idea that has been present in practically every society. In the past, the death penalty was used for common transgressions against society. When human civilization first emerged, people engaged in combat with each other for food, sex, etc., and as a result, they injure humanity through eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, or blood for blood. This is a very old legal idea.

The world gradually evolved along with societal norms and ways of thinking. In England, a servant who stole a small item may be sentenced to death. Back then, people had such a severe mentality.[7]

Crime Rate And Modern Context

Crime is at its highest level in the modern world, particularly in India. India is among the top 10 nations in the world in terms of crime rates. The legislature has passed numerous laws and various forms of punishment to deter criminal activity. The death penalty is the most severe punishment.

India has not abolished the death penalty despite numerous rulings; nevertheless, the notion has been slightly altered by jurists, who now apply the death penalty in situations where the doctrine of rarest of rare is applicable.

The researcher is attempting to concentrate on the characteristics of the death punishment. Through this endeavor, the researcher will attempt to clarify the issues that the Honourable Indian Constitutional Courts with relation to the study’s title.

In this study, the researcher will attempt to determine whether the death penalty in the rarest of rare cases is just and fair, as well as why the death penalty was once applied and how a crime is deemed to be the most heinous or uncommon. On the one hand, our Constitution guarantees human rights under Fundamental Rights.

International Case Law On Death Penalty

• In Rooper v. Simmons case[8], which forbade the imposition of the death penalty on anybody younger than eighteen.
• The Supreme Court’s ruling in the Uttecht v. Brown[9] case (US[10]) demonstrated an exception about the death penalty.

In his ruling, the Supreme Court mandated the creation of a two-phase trial for the death penalty. The jury will determine whether or not the accused is guilty of murder in the first trial[11], and if the accused is found guilty in the first trial, the jury will determine whether or not the death penalty is suitable in the second trial.

The Supreme Court mandates that the jury take into account aggravating circumstances when determining the appropriate punishment based on the evidence that was given in situations that have both aggravating and mitigating factors[12].

Additionally, it was decided that the death penalty should only be applied in the worst-of-the-worst murder situations rather than on a case-by-case basis. It was also decided that the death sentence would be based on the criminal’s violent past, whether the accused had a lengthy criminal record, or whether the accused killed multiple persons at the time of the murder or murders.

However, the death sentence should not be applied to an accused person who has mitigating circumstances, such as having never been found guilty of a crime and having committed a minor conduct.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Lockhart v. Mccree[13] upholds the validity of state proceedings with reference to the jurist of Death qualified, and it was decided that jurists who sit in any part of a capital punishment case to determine guilt or innocence as well as whether or not the death penalty should be applied must not be ideologically or religiously opposed to the death penalty.

These jurists will identify the aggravating and migrating factors in that case, and only the death penalty should be applied[14].

Meaning Of Capital Punishment

The death penalty, sometimes referred to as the capital punishment, is the most severe type of criminal punishment. It allows the state to lawfully kill a person who has been found guilty of a particularly serious crime. It is only granted for the most egregious crimes and only after a thorough legal procedure.

The term capital originates from the Latin word capitalis, meaning “regarding the head,” referring to execution by beheading in ancient times.

Death Penalty or Capital punishment is the execution of a person sentenced to death after conviction by a court of law. It is not the same as extrajudicial executions, which are not subject to due process.

It is based on the idea of retributive justice, which holds that serious crimes, including murder, should be punished proportionately.

Indian History

• For crimes like theft, the Manusmriti stipulated punishment (by elephants, for example).
• The death penalty was stipulated in the Indian Penal Code (1860) and was kept after independence.

India’s Legal Position

Legal Provision	Description
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023	It has extended the death sentence to encompass crimes like rape of a minor and mob lynching (if it causes death).
Types Of Crimes	The death sentence is applied to about 14 different types of crimes, including as murder, terrorism, and aiding and abetting mutiny.
Exemptions	People with mental illnesses, pregnant women, and minors cannot be put to death.
Appellate Procedure	The High Court must uphold a death sentence imposed by a Sessions Court. The accused may file an appeal with the Supreme Court.

Legal Recourse For Death Row Convicts

A mercy petition is a formal request for mercy from the governor or the president, as applicable, made by someone who has been given a death or prison sentence.

Pardoning Authority

• President (Article 72): Can grant pardons, reprieves, or commutations.
• Governor (Article 161): Has similar powers but typically defers major capital cases to the President.

Curative Petition

Evolved in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002), this allows the SC to reconsider its final judgment to cure a “gross miscarriage of justice.”

Arguments In Favour

• Lex talionis, or “an eye for an eye,” is the foundation of retributive justice.
• In cases of extreme brutality, such as the Nirbhaya Gang Rape case, society feels that the severity of the punishment should be commensurate with the victim’s suffering. The victim’s family receives “moral closure” from it, and society as a whole is satisfied.
• Deterrence Theory: Preventing potential offenders is the main objective of penology. It is believed that the greatest deterrent to committing horrible crimes is the dread of dying.
• A logical person will decide not to commit the crime after weighing the costs (death) against the rewards.
• The Argument of “Taxpayer Burden”: Public resources are severely strained when high-risk violent offenders are housed for decades since the state must pay for their long-term food, housing as well as healthcare.
• Public Will: Retention is frequently preferred by the great majority of persons. For example, a survey conducted following the Delhi rape case in December 2012 revealed that around 70% of Indians supported keeping the death sentence in place.

Arguments Against

• No Empirical Evidence of Deterrence: According to the Justice Verma Committee (2013), there is no proof that the death penalty deters rape.
• According to international surveys (such as those conducted by the UN), nations that do not have the death sentence do not always have greater crime rates than those that do.
• Judicial Arbitrariness: The “rarest of rare” doctrine’s applicability is nonetheless fundamentally arbitrary.
• Even though the Machhi Singh decision established rules for determining what constitutes a “rarest of rare” case, judges frequently interpret these principles differently, making the threshold flexible and changeable in reality.
• According to the Supreme Court’s own admission, 14 former justices petitioned the President in 2012 to pardon 13 convicts who had been wrongfully sentenced to death.
• The legal system is not perfect. A miscarriage of justice that cannot be undone is the execution of an innocent person.
• Socio-Economic Bias: Poor defendants are more likely to be found guilty than rich ones because they frequently do not have access to competent legal counsel.
• Reformative Justice: Rather than focusing on punishment, modern jurisprudence emphasizes reformation. “Hate the crime, not the perpetrator” (Mahatma Gandhi).
• According to Shatrughan Chauhan v. UOI (2014), the “Death Row Phenomenon” a protracted period of solitary detention while awaiting execution is regarded as torture.

Judicial Remark: Delhi Gang Rape Case

“There should be exemplary punishment in view of the unparalleled brutality with which the victim was gang raped and murdered, as the case falls under the rarest of rare category. All be given death.”

— Additional Sessions Judge Yogesh Khanna in the infamous Delhi gang-rape case

Summary

The Supreme Court has not confirmed any death sentences in the past three years, with high acquittal and commutation rates exposing serious trial court errors, procedural violations, and risks of wrongful convictions in capital sentencing.

Growing concerns over fairness, lack of deterrence evidence, and human rights issues have intensified calls for reforms such as strict adherence to sentencing safeguards, standardised guidelines, and greater use of life imprisonment without remission as an alternative to the death penalty.

References

• Drishti IAS. Death Penalty in India. https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/death-penalty-in-india
• Amnesty International Report (1987). The Death Penalty. Amnesty International Organisation: www.amnesty.org
• Bacchan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1980 SC 653. Retrieved December 31, 2013 from http://www.indiankanoon.org
• Ahmed, I.G. (2002). Death Sentence and Criminal Justice in Human Right Perspective. University of Calcutta, pp. 1–4. Retrieved December 28, 2013.
• International Scenario of United Nation Charter (1948). Retrieved December 28, 2013 from http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
• United Nations Economic and Social Council (1996). Retrieved December 28, 2013 from http://www.un.org/esa/…/ecosocmainres.htm
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966). Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of December 16, 1966. Retrieved December 28, 2013 from http://www.ohchr.org
• Agrawal, A. (2000). Abolition or Retention of Death Penalty in India – A Critical Appraisal. Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar (India), pp. 2–4. Retrieved December 29, 2013.
• Roopers v. Simmons 543 US 551, 578 app. 579–580 (2005). Retrieved December 31, 2013 from http://www.supremecourt.gov/
• Uttecht v. Brown 127 S.Ct. 2218 (2007). Retrieved December 31, 2013 from http://www.supremecourt.gov/
• Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 163 (1976). Retrieved December 31, 2013 from http://www.supremecourt.gov/
• Proffitt, 428 U.S. at 248. Retrieved December 31, 2013 from http://www.supremecourt.gov/
• Lockhart v. McCree 476 U.S. 162, 164, 173 (1986). Retrieved December 31, 2013 from http://www.supremecourt.gov/
• Gregg v. Georgia 428 U.S. Retrieved December 31, 2013 from http://www.supremecourt.gov/

End Notes

1. Akansha Madaan, Death Penalty.
2. Bacchan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1980 SC 653. Retrieved December 31, 2013 from http://www.indiankanoon.org
3. Ahmed, I.G. (2002). Death Sentence and Criminal Justice in Human Right Perspective. University of Calcutta, pp. 1–4. Retrieved December 28, 2013.
4. International Scenario of United Nation Charter (1948). Retrieved December 28, 2013 from http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
5. United Nations Economic and Social Council (1996). Retrieved December 28, 2013 from http://www.un.org/esa/…/ecosocmainres.htm
6. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966). Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of December 16, 1966. Retrieved December 28, 2013 from http://www.ohchr.org
7. Agrawal, A. (2000). Abolition or Retention of Death Penalty in India – A Critical Appraisal. Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar (India), pp. 2–4. Retrieved December 29, 2013.
8. Roopers v. Simmons 543 US 551, 578 app. 579–580 (2005). Retrieved December 31, 2013 from http://www.supremecourt.gov/
9. Uttecht v. Brown 127 S.Ct. 2218 (2007). Retrieved December 31, 2013 from http://www.supremecourt.gov/
10. United States.
11. Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 163 (1976). Retrieved December 31, 2013 from http://www.supremecourt.gov/
12. Proffitt, 428 U.S. at 248. Retrieved December 31, 2013 from http://www.supremecourt.gov/
13. Lockhart v. McCree 476 U.S. 162, 164, 173 (1986). Retrieved December 31, 2013 from http://www.supremecourt.gov/
14. Gregg v. Georgia 428 U.S. Retrieved December 31, 2013 from http://www.supremecourt.gov/
15. Delhi Gang-Rape Case (2013). Death sentence for all four convicts. Times of India, Sept 13, 2013. Retrieved January 15, 2013 from http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-09-13/india/42039872_1_advocate-v-kanand-four-convicts-delhi-high-court