The death penalty remains one of the most contentious issues in India’s legal and moral landscape. As a punishment reserved for the “rarest of rare” cases, it is deeply rooted in India’s colonial history and continues to spark debates about justice, human rights, and the potential for reform. This article explores the legal framework governing capital punishment in India, its moral implications, and the ongoing calls for reform, drawing on judicial precedents, empirical data, and ethical considerations.
Legal Framework of the Death Penalty in India
Historical Context
Capital punishment in India has ancient origins, with references in texts like the Arthashastra and Manusmriti, which prescribed death for heinous crimes such as murder and treason to maintain social order. During the Mughal era, Islamic law influenced its application, while British colonial rule formalized it under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) of 1860, which remains a cornerstone of India’s criminal justice system. Post-independence, India retained the death penalty, but its scope has been narrowed through judicial oversight.
Current Legal Provisions
The death penalty is imposed under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which replaced the IPC and expanded death penalty-eligible offenses from 12 to 18, covering crimes like murder, terrorism, and sexual offenses resulting in death or a vegetative state. Section 368 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) requires High Courts to confirm death sentences, ensuring judicial scrutiny. The “rarest of rare” doctrine, established in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980), mandates that the death penalty be reserved for exceptional cases where life imprisonment is inadequate, and courts must consider both the crime and the offender’s circumstances, such as age, socio-economic background, and potential for reform.
Execution Methods
Hanging remains the primary method of execution, though the Supreme Court is reviewing its constitutionality to explore less painful alternatives, following a 1983 ruling. The 187th Law Commission Report (2003) recommended lethal injection as an option, but this has not been adopted.
Moral Dimensions of the Death Penalty
Arguments in Favor
Proponents argue that the death penalty serves as a deterrent and upholds retributive justice. The Law Commission’s earlier reports (e.g., 35th Report) cited India’s diverse social conditions, population size, and need for law and order as justifications for retention. Utilitarian principles suggest that the societal good of deterring heinous crimes outweighs individual rights in extreme cases. Cultural and religious notions of justice, particularly in response to crimes like sexual violence, also fuel public demand for capital punishment.
Arguments Against
Critics, including human rights organizations like Amnesty International, argue that the death penalty violates the right to life under Article 21 and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Death Penalty India Report (2016) by Project 39A highlights systemic flaws, noting that 74.1% of death row prisoners are economically vulnerable, and 34.6% belong to backward classes or minorities, suggesting bias. The report also documents poor legal representation and prison conditions, raising concerns about fairness.
Morally, the death penalty conflicts with medical ethics, as it involves healthcare professionals in executions, violating the Hippocratic Oath and resolutions by the World Medical Association (2012) and Indian Medical Association (2017). John Stuart Mill’s principle of harm justifies limiting liberty to prevent harm to others, but critics argue it does not extend to taking life, especially when reformation is possible. The irreversibility of execution risks killing the innocent, with nearly 200 exonerations in the U.S. since 1973 serving as a cautionary tale.
Judicial and Legislative Efforts
The Supreme Court has attempted to reform sentencing through cases like Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022), mandating trial courts to collect data on mitigating circumstances, such as socio-economic status and mental health. However, Project 39A’s 2024 report found that 93% of trial courts failed to comply, highlighting systemic issues. The Court’s 2022 initiative to form a Constitution Bench to standardize sentencing reflects ongoing concerns about arbitrary application.
The 262nd Law Commission Report (2015) recommended abolishing the death penalty for all crimes except terrorism and waging war, citing its failure as a deterrent and violation of human rights. Despite this, India voted against UN moratoriums on the death penalty in 2021 and 2022, reflecting resistance to abolition.
Societal and Political Perspectives
Public opinion often supports the death penalty in cases of extreme violence, such as the 2012 Nirbhaya case, which prompted the Justice Verma Committee to recommend against its use for rape, advocating instead for systemic reforms in policing and victim support. However, political responses, like the Aprajita Woman and Child Bill (2024) in West Bengal, continue to expand death penalty provisions, driven by populist sentiment rather than evidence.
Proposed Reforms
- Enhanced Legal Representation: Addressing inadequate legal aid, especially for marginalized groups, could reduce disparities.
- Sentencing Guidelines: Clearer standards for the “rarest of rare” doctrine and mandatory mitigation reports could ensure fairness.
- Alternative Punishments: Life imprisonment without parole or restorative justice models, such as civil labor, could balance deterrence and reformation.
- Systemic Reforms: Police training, witness protection, and victim compensation schemes, as recommended by the Justice Verma Committee, could address root causes of crime.
- Abolition: Aligning with global trends, where 112 countries have fully abolished the death penalty, India could transition to a fully reformative justice system.
Conclusion
The death penalty in India stands at a crossroads, caught between retributive traditions and calls for a more humane, reformative justice system. While the “rarest of rare” doctrine and judicial safeguards aim to limit its use, systemic biases, poor compliance, and moral concerns undermine its legitimacy. The growing death row population and high acquittal rates by the Supreme Court underscore the need for urgent reform. Whether India moves toward abolition or refines its application through evidence-based policies will depend on balancing public sentiment, judicial innovation, and global human rights standards.
Death Penalty in India: Law, Morality, and Reform
The death penalty remains one of the most contentious issues in India’s legal and moral landscape. As a punishment reserved for the “rarest of rare” cases, it is deeply rooted in India’s colonial history and continues to spark debates about justice, human rights, and the potential for reform. This article explores the legal framework governing capital punishment in India, its moral implications, and the ongoing calls for reform, drawing on judicial precedents, empirical data, and ethical considerations.
Legal Framework of the Death Penalty in India
Historical Context
Capital punishment in India has ancient origins, with references in texts like the Arthashastra and Manusmriti, which prescribed death for heinous crimes such as murder and treason to maintain social order. During the Mughal era, Islamic law influenced its application, while British colonial rule formalized it under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) of 1860, which remains a cornerstone of India’s criminal justice system. Post-independence, India retained the death penalty, but its scope has been narrowed through judicial oversight.
Current Legal Provisions
The death penalty is imposed under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which replaced the IPC and expanded death penalty-eligible offenses from 12 to 18, covering crimes like murder, terrorism, and sexual offenses resulting in death or a vegetative state. Section 368 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) requires High Courts to confirm death sentences, ensuring judicial scrutiny. The “rarest of rare” doctrine, established in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980), mandates that the death penalty be reserved for exceptional cases where life imprisonment is inadequate, and courts must consider both the crime and the offender’s circumstances, such as age, socio-economic background, and potential for reform.
Execution Methods
Hanging remains the primary method of execution, though the Supreme Court is reviewing its constitutionality to explore less painful alternatives, following a 1983 ruling. The 187th Law Commission Report (2003) recommended lethal injection as an option, but this has not been adopted.
Moral Dimensions of the Death Penalty
Arguments in Favor
Proponents argue that the death penalty serves as a deterrent and upholds retributive justice. The Law Commission’s earlier reports (e.g., 35th Report) cited India’s diverse social conditions, population size, and need for law and order as justifications for retention. Utilitarian principles suggest that the societal good of deterring heinous crimes outweighs individual rights in extreme cases. Cultural and religious notions of justice, particularly in response to crimes like sexual violence, also fuel public demand for capital punishment.
Arguments Against
Critics, including human rights organizations like Amnesty International, argue that the death penalty violates the right to life under Article 21 and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Death Penalty India Report (2016) by Project 39A highlights systemic flaws, noting that 74.1% of death row prisoners are economically vulnerable, and 34.6% belong to backward classes or minorities, suggesting bias. The report also documents poor legal representation and prison conditions, raising concerns about fairness.
Morally, the death penalty conflicts with medical ethics, as it involves healthcare professionals in executions, violating the Hippocratic Oath and resolutions by the World Medical Association (2012) and Indian Medical Association (2017). John Stuart Mill’s principle of harm justifies limiting liberty to prevent harm to others, but critics argue it does not extend to taking life, especially when reformation is possible. The irreversibility of execution risks killing the innocent, with nearly 200 exonerations in the U.S. since 1973 serving as a cautionary tale.
Judicial and Legislative Efforts
The Supreme Court has attempted to reform sentencing through cases like Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022), mandating trial courts to collect data on mitigating circumstances, such as socio-economic status and mental health. However, Project 39A’s 2024 report found that 93% of trial courts failed to comply, highlighting systemic issues. The Court’s 2022 initiative to form a Constitution Bench to standardize sentencing reflects ongoing concerns about arbitrary application.
The 262nd Law Commission Report (2015) recommended abolishing the death penalty for all crimes except terrorism and waging war, citing its failure as a deterrent and violation of human rights. Despite this, India voted against UN moratoriums on the death penalty in 2021 and 2022, reflecting resistance to abolition.
Societal and Political Perspectives
Public opinion often supports the death penalty in cases of extreme violence, such as the 2012 Nirbhaya case, which prompted the Justice Verma Committee to recommend against its use for rape, advocating instead for systemic reforms in policing and victim support. However, political responses, like the Aprajita Woman and Child Bill (2024) in West Bengal, continue to expand death penalty provisions, driven by populist sentiment rather than evidence.
Proposed Reforms
- Enhanced Legal Representation: Addressing inadequate legal aid, especially for marginalized groups, could reduce disparities.
- Sentencing Guidelines: Clearer standards for the “rarest of rare” doctrine and mandatory mitigation reports could ensure fairness.
- Alternative Punishments: Life imprisonment without parole or restorative justice models, such as civil labor, could balance deterrence and reformation.
- Systemic Reforms: Police training, witness protection, and victim compensation schemes, as recommended by the Justice Verma Committee, could address root causes of crime.
- Abolition: Aligning with global trends, where 112 countries have fully abolished the death penalty, India could transition to a fully reformative justice system.
Conclusion
The death penalty in India stands at a crossroads, caught between retributive traditions and calls for a more humane, reformative justice system. While the “rarest of rare” doctrine and judicial safeguards aim to limit its use, systemic biases, poor compliance, and moral concerns undermine its legitimacy. The growing death row population and high acquittal rates by the Supreme Court underscore the need for urgent reform. Whether India moves toward abolition or refines its application through evidence-based policies will depend on balancing public sentiment, judicial innovation, and global human rights standards.
Contributed by : Sonam Rawat (Intern))