The Supreme Court of India has consistently maintained that Capital Punishment is constitutionally valid, but it has evolved a highly restrictive framework for its application. The Court has transitioned from a position where the death penalty was a "rule" to one where it is an "exception" reserved only for the most extreme cases.
The judicial reaction can be divided into four distinct phases:
1. The Early Phase: Presumption of Validity
Following the enactment of the Indian Constitution, the challenge to the death penalty was initially dismissed based on a literal interpretation of Article 21 (Right to Life), which allows for the deprivation of life "according to procedure established by law."
Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P. (1973): This was the first major challenge. The Court held that the death penalty did not violate Article 14, 19, or 21. It ruled that the choice between a life sentence and death was a matter of judicial discretion and that the procedure was fair.
2. The Watershed Moment: The "Rarest of Rare" Doctrine
With the introduction of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973, life imprisonment became the rule and death became the exception. Section 354(3) required judges to give "special reasons" for awarding a death sentence.
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980): This is the most significant case in Indian penology. The Court upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty but established the "Rarest of Rare" doctrine.
It mandated that the court must weigh Aggravating Circumstances (related to the crime) against Mitigating Circumstances (related to the criminal).
The death penalty should only be imposed when the alternative of life imprisonment is "unquestionably foreclosed."
Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983): The Court further clarified the Bachan Singh guidelines, identifying five categories of crimes (manner of commission, motive, antisocial nature, magnitude of crime, and personality of victim) where the "rarest of rare" test might apply.
3. The Shift toward Subjective Mitigation
In the last two decades, the Court has become increasingly concerned with the criminal rather than just the crime. It has criticized "crime-centric" sentencing.
Santosh Kumar Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra (2009): The Court observed that in many previous cases, it had failed to apply the Bachan Singh mandate properly. It emphasized that the state must prove that a convict is beyond reformation.
Chhannulal Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh (2019): The Court reiterated that the "possibility of reform" must be considered as a mitigating factor even in cases of extreme depravity.
4. Post-Conviction Remedies and Humanization
The Court has also reacted by creating "safety valves" to ensure that even a person on death row is treated with dignity.
Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014): The Court ruled that an inordinate delay by the President or Governor in deciding a mercy petition is a ground for commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment. It held that such delay causes "mental torture" to the convict.
Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022): The Court issued comprehensive guidelines requiring trial courts to proactively call for reports from jail authorities and psychologists regarding the convict’s background and mental health before deciding on a death sentence.
Supreme Court’s Current Stance
The Supreme Court’s reaction can be summarized as "Judicial Hesitation." While it refuses to abolish the death penalty (stating that it is a matter for the Legislature), it has created such high procedural hurdles that the actual execution of death sentences has become extremely rare.
| Key Principle | Case Reference |
| Constitutionality | Jagmohan Singh (1973) |
| Rarest of Rare | Bachan Singh (1980) |
| Delay as Ground for Commutation | Shatrughan Chauhan (2014) |
| Mandatory Mitigation Entry | Manoj v. State of MP (2022) |
No comments:
Post a Comment