{"id":10523,"date":"2025-10-22T06:02:20","date_gmt":"2025-10-22T06:02:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=10523"},"modified":"2025-10-22T06:09:29","modified_gmt":"2025-10-22T06:09:29","slug":"from-death-penalty-to-life-term-humanitarian-shifts-in-justice","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/from-death-penalty-to-life-term-humanitarian-shifts-in-justice\/","title":{"rendered":"From Death Penalty to Life Term: Humanitarian Shifts in Justice"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2 id=\"introduction-to-death-penalty-jurisprudence\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Introduction_to_Death_Penalty_Jurisprudence_in_India\"><\/span>Introduction to Death Penalty Jurisprudence in India<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The death penalty has always been one of the most debated aspects of criminal jurisprudence. In India, although constitutionally valid under Article 21, its imposition is guided by the \u201crarest of rare\u201d doctrine. However, over the decades, the Supreme Court and various High Courts have exhibited a growing inclination towards commutation of death sentences to life imprisonment, emphasizing reformative justice, mitigating factors, and proportionality of punishment. The 262nd Law Commission Report (2015) echoed this humanitarian trajectory, urging abolition of the death penalty for all crimes except those concerning terrorism, citing the risk of judicial error and moral inconsistency.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/from-death-penalty-to-life-term-humanitarian-shifts-in-justice\/#Introduction_to_Death_Penalty_Jurisprudence_in_India\" >Introduction to Death Penalty Jurisprudence in India<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/from-death-penalty-to-life-term-humanitarian-shifts-in-justice\/#The_Sentencing_Dichotomy_%E2%80%93_Aggravating_vs_Mitigating_Factors\" >The Sentencing Dichotomy &#8211; Aggravating vs. Mitigating Factors<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/from-death-penalty-to-life-term-humanitarian-shifts-in-justice\/#Judicial_Trends_and_Mitigating_Factors_Influencing_Commutation\" >Judicial Trends and Mitigating Factors Influencing Commutation<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/from-death-penalty-to-life-term-humanitarian-shifts-in-justice\/#1_Youth_of_the_Accused\" >1. Youth of the Accused<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/from-death-penalty-to-life-term-humanitarian-shifts-in-justice\/#2_Possibility_of_Reform_and_Rehabilitation\" >2. Possibility of Reform and Rehabilitation<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/from-death-penalty-to-life-term-humanitarian-shifts-in-justice\/#3_Absence_of_Criminal_Antecedents\" >3. Absence of Criminal Antecedents<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/from-death-penalty-to-life-term-humanitarian-shifts-in-justice\/#4_Lack_of_Menace_to_Society\" >4. Lack of Menace to Society<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/from-death-penalty-to-life-term-humanitarian-shifts-in-justice\/#5_Partial_Acquittal_or_Doubt_in_Evidence\" >5. Partial Acquittal or Doubt in Evidence<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/from-death-penalty-to-life-term-humanitarian-shifts-in-justice\/#6_Absence_of_Premeditation\" >6. Absence of Premeditation<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/from-death-penalty-to-life-term-humanitarian-shifts-in-justice\/#7_Conviction_Based_on_Circumstantial_Evidence\" >7. Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/from-death-penalty-to-life-term-humanitarian-shifts-in-justice\/#Recent_Judicial_Developments_2020%E2%80%932025\" >Recent Judicial Developments (2020\u20132025)<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/from-death-penalty-to-life-term-humanitarian-shifts-in-justice\/#1_Manoj_Ors_v_State_of_Madhya_Pradesh_2022\" >1. Manoj &amp; Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022)<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-13\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/from-death-penalty-to-life-term-humanitarian-shifts-in-justice\/#2_Irfan_Naka_v_State_of_Madhya_Pradesh_2023\" >2. Irfan @ Naka v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023)<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-14\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/from-death-penalty-to-life-term-humanitarian-shifts-in-justice\/#3_State_of_Maharashtra_v_Shatrughna_Baban_Meshram_2021\" >3. State of Maharashtra v. Shatrughna Baban Meshram (2021)<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-15\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/from-death-penalty-to-life-term-humanitarian-shifts-in-justice\/#4_X_v_State_of_Maharashtra_2024\" >4. X v. State of Maharashtra (2024)<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-16\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/from-death-penalty-to-life-term-humanitarian-shifts-in-justice\/#Emerging_Humanitarian_and_Constitutional_Concerns\" >Emerging Humanitarian and Constitutional Concerns<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-17\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/from-death-penalty-to-life-term-humanitarian-shifts-in-justice\/#Comparative_Note_Global_Perspectives_on_Capital_Punishment\" >Comparative Note: Global Perspectives on Capital Punishment<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-18\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/from-death-penalty-to-life-term-humanitarian-shifts-in-justice\/#Reflections_on_Judicial_Philosophy\" >Reflections on Judicial Philosophy<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-19\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/from-death-penalty-to-life-term-humanitarian-shifts-in-justice\/#The_Criticality_of_Competent_Counsel_in_Capital_Cases\" >The Criticality of Competent Counsel in Capital Cases<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-20\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/from-death-penalty-to-life-term-humanitarian-shifts-in-justice\/#Conclusion\" >Conclusion<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n<h2 id=\"sentencing-dichotomy\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"The_Sentencing_Dichotomy_%E2%80%93_Aggravating_vs_Mitigating_Factors\"><\/span>The Sentencing Dichotomy &#8211; Aggravating vs. Mitigating Factors<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>India&#8217;s capital punishment adheres strictly to the &#8220;rarest of rare&#8221; doctrine, established through <em><a href=\"\/legal\/article-12744-analyzing-the-landmark-case-bachan-singh-v-s-state-of-punjab-a-milestone-in-indian-criminal-law.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab<\/a> (1980)<\/em>. This principle reserves the death penalty for exceptionally brutal crimes gravely shocking society&#8217;s collective conscience, denoting an irredeemable, continuing threat from the offender.<\/p>\n<p>Courts meticulously weigh aggravating factors\u2014such as premeditation, extreme cruelty, or complete lack of remorse\u2014particularly when an offense reveals profound depravity or an incorrigible personality devoid of reformative potential.<\/p>\n<p>Conversely, the judiciary constitutionally assesses mitigating factors that reduce culpability, favouring life imprisonment. These include youth, no prior criminal record, reform potential, lack of premeditation, or circumstantial evidence. Humanitarian factors (mental illness, severe socio-economic disadvantage, or &#8216;death row phenomenon&#8217;) are also critical.<\/p>\n<p>Recent judgments, notably <em>Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022)<\/em> and <em>Irfan @ Naka v. State of M.P. (2023)<\/em>, emphasize mandatory individualized sentencing. This demands a thorough, case-specific evaluation of the convict\u2019s reformative possibilities, ensuring that the death penalty remains the ultimate last resort, upholding India&#8217;s dedication to human dignity and reformative justice.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"judicial-trends\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Judicial_Trends_and_Mitigating_Factors_Influencing_Commutation\"><\/span>Judicial Trends and Mitigating Factors Influencing Commutation<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>A study of precedents reveals that courts have cumulatively considered several mitigating factors before converting a death sentence to life imprisonment. These include youth of the accused, possibility of reform, absence of prior criminal record, lack of premeditation, and cases based on circumstantial evidence.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"youth-of-the-accused\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"1_Youth_of_the_Accused\"><\/span>1. Youth of the Accused<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Courts often view young age as indicative of potential reform and emotional immaturity at the time of the offence. In <em>Amit v. State of Maharashtra<\/em> (2003) 8 SCC 93 and <em>Rahul v. State of U.P.<\/em> (2012) 11 SCC 711, the Supreme Court commuted the death sentence considering the tender age of the accused (20\u201328 years).<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"possibility-of-reform\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"2_Possibility_of_Reform_and_Rehabilitation\"><\/span>2. Possibility of Reform and Rehabilitation<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The judiciary has repeatedly held that a death sentence should not be imposed if there is any real possibility of reform. In <em>Santosh Kumar Singh v. State through CBI<\/em> (2010) 9 SCC 747, despite the brutality of the crime, the Court commuted the death penalty noting the accused\u2019s potential for rehabilitation. <em>Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State of Karnataka<\/em> (2008) 13 SCC 767 introduced \u201cspecial category life imprisonment\u201d &#8211; life without remission &#8211; as a balanced approach between retribution and reform.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"absence-of-criminal-antecedents\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"3_Absence_of_Criminal_Antecedents\"><\/span>3. Absence of Criminal Antecedents<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>First-time offenders are often granted leniency. In <em>Nirmal Singh v. State of Haryana<\/em> (1999) 3 SCC 670 and <em>Surendra Pal Shivbalakpal v. State of U.P.<\/em> (2005) 3 SCC 719, the death sentence was commuted due to clean antecedents and lack of habitual criminality.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"lack-of-menace\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"4_Lack_of_Menace_to_Society\"><\/span>4. Lack of Menace to Society<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Courts have commuted death sentences where the accused was not likely to be a continuing threat to society. In <em>Mohd. Chaman v. State (NCT of Delhi)<\/em> (2001) 2 SCC 28, despite the heinous nature of the crime, the Court considered that the accused was not beyond reform.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"partial-acquittal\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"5_Partial_Acquittal_or_Doubt_in_Evidence\"><\/span>5. Partial Acquittal or Doubt in Evidence<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>If an accused is acquitted by one court or the evidence leaves room for reasonable doubt, courts generally favour life imprisonment. In <em>State of Maharashtra v. Suresh<\/em> (2000) 1 SCC 471, the Supreme Court emphasized that inconsistency in judicial opinions militates against awarding the death penalty.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"absence-of-premeditation\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"6_Absence_of_Premeditation\"><\/span>6. Absence of Premeditation<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Crimes committed in a moment of passion or provocation are treated differently. In <em>Kumudi Lal v. State of U.P.<\/em> (1999) 4 SCC 108, the Court commuted the sentence noting the spontaneous nature of the act.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"circumstantial-evidence\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"7_Conviction_Based_on_Circumstantial_Evidence\"><\/span>7. Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>When conviction rests solely on circumstantial evidence, courts show greater caution. As per <em>Mansingh v. State of Rajasthan<\/em> (2003) and <em>Bishnu Prasad Sinha v. State of Assam<\/em> (2007), a death penalty should not ordinarily be imposed unless every hypothesis of innocence is excluded beyond reasonable doubt.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"recent-judicial-developments\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Recent_Judicial_Developments_2020%E2%80%932025\"><\/span>Recent Judicial Developments (2020\u20132025)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<h3 id=\"manoj-case\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"1_Manoj_Ors_v_State_of_Madhya_Pradesh_2022\"><\/span>1. <em>Manoj &amp; Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022)<\/em><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Introduced a comprehensive sentencing framework directing courts to consider psychological evaluation, socio-economic background, and reform prospects before confirming a death sentence.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"irfan-case\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"2_Irfan_Naka_v_State_of_Madhya_Pradesh_2023\"><\/span>2. <em>Irfan @ Naka v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023)<\/em><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The Court commuted the death sentence, emphasizing individualized sentencing and rejecting mere brutality as sufficient for death penalty.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"shatrughna-case\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"3_State_of_Maharashtra_v_Shatrughna_Baban_Meshram_2021\"><\/span>3. <em>State of Maharashtra v. Shatrughna Baban Meshram (2021)<\/em><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Reaffirmed that reformation is a constitutional value under Article 21, requiring proof that the accused is beyond redemption.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"x-vs-maharashtra\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"4_X_v_State_of_Maharashtra_2024\"><\/span>4. <em>X v. State of Maharashtra (2024)<\/em><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Converted a death sentence to life imprisonment for prolonged incarceration (12+ years on death row), recognizing the psychological torture as violative of human dignity.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"humanitarian-concerns\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Emerging_Humanitarian_and_Constitutional_Concerns\"><\/span>Emerging Humanitarian and Constitutional Concerns<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>Modern jurisprudence emphasizes factors such as delay in execution (<em>Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India<\/em>), mental illness (<em>Accused \u2018X\u2019 v. State of Maharashtra<\/em>), socio-economic deprivation, and gender vulnerability (<em>Renuka Bai v. State of Maharashtra<\/em>).<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"global-perspective\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Comparative_Note_Global_Perspectives_on_Capital_Punishment\"><\/span>Comparative Note: Global Perspectives on Capital Punishment<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>Globally, over 140 countries have abolished or restricted the death penalty. The European Union prohibits it under <em>Article 2 of the ECHR<\/em>. Landmark cases like <em>Soering v. United Kingdom (1989)<\/em> highlight the psychological cruelty of capital punishment. In the U.S., <em>Furman v. Georgia (1972)<\/em>, <em>Atkins v. Virginia (2002)<\/em>, and <em>Roper v. Simmons (2005)<\/em> demonstrate a shift toward proportionality and human rights protection. India\u2019s cautious \u201crarest of rare\u201d stance aligns with this global trend toward restraint and reform.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"judicial-philosophy\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Reflections_on_Judicial_Philosophy\"><\/span>Reflections on Judicial Philosophy<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<ol>\n<li><strong>Reformative vs. Retributive Justice:<\/strong> The judiciary favours reformative justice, viewing commutation as a reaffirmation of human dignity.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Institutional Restraint:<\/strong> Courts show restraint, avoiding enhancement to death unless unavoidable.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Proportionality and Consistency:<\/strong> Ensures uniformity and fairness in sentencing nationwide.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Judicial Philosophy and Discretion:<\/strong> Each judge\u2019s personal philosophy plays a role, underscoring the need for transparent, reasoned judgments.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<h2 id=\"competent-counsel\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"The_Criticality_of_Competent_Counsel_in_Capital_Cases\"><\/span>The Criticality of Competent Counsel in Capital Cases<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The quality of defense representation often determines outcomes in capital cases. Inadequate legal aid undermines justice by failing to present crucial mitigating evidence like trauma, poverty, or mental illness. Competent advocacy ensures the court fulfills its constitutional duty under the &#8220;rarest of rare&#8221; doctrine.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"conclusion\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Conclusion\"><\/span>Conclusion<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The jurisprudence of death penalty commutation in India reflects a decisive shift from retributive justice to constitutional humanism. Life imprisonment is the rule, death the exception. Courts emphasize individualized sentencing, reformative potential, and proportionality. As Justice Bhagwati observed in <em>Bachan Singh<\/em>: \u201cThe death penalty must not be imposed save in the rarest of rare cases when the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed.\u201d The true test of justice lies not in punishment, but in preserving the possibility of redemption.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Introduction to Death Penalty Jurisprudence in India The death penalty has always been one of the most debated aspects of criminal jurisprudence. In India, although constitutionally valid under Article 21, its imposition is guided by the \u201crarest of rare\u201d doctrine. However, over the decades, the Supreme Court and various High Courts have exhibited a growing<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":49,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[15],"tags":[28],"class_list":{"0":"post-10523","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-criminal-law","7":"tag-top-news"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10523","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/49"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10523"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10523\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10523"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10523"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10523"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}