DEATH PENALTY IN INDIA: HOW THE SUPREME COURT SHAPED DUE PROCESS

Why In News?

Recent Supreme Court rulings strengthen death penalty safeguards by requiring courts to evaluate an accused's potential for reformation and consider mitigating circumstances before sentencing.

What Is The Constitutional And Legal Basis Of The Death Penalty?

Constitutional Framework

• Constitutionally Permissible: The death penalty is constitutional, but it is subject to strict judicial safeguards.  

• Article 14: It guarantees equality before law and protects against arbitrary State action, including arbitrary sentencing.  

• Article 21: Life can be taken only through a procedure that is "fair, just and reasonable".  

• Clemency Powers: The President (Article 72) and Governors (Article 161) can pardon, commute or remit death sentences. 

• Only the President can grant a full pardon in a death sentence case. Governors cannot grant a pardon for a death sentence, though they can commute or remit other punishments under state laws 

Statutory Requirement

• "Special Reasons": Courts must record special reasons for imposing death, earlier under Section 354(3) of the CrPC and now under Section 393(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. 

Free Mentorship Need Guidance for UPSC / WBCS / State PSC?
100% Free & Confidential • Quick Callback
Request Callback

• Separate Hearing On Sentence: After conviction, the court must hear the accused on the question of sentence before deciding punishment.  

How Supreme Court Shaped The Law On The Death Penalty?

Evolution Of Judgments

Bachan Singh: The Foundation

• Rule And Exception: The Constitution Bench held that life imprisonment is the rule and death the exception. 

• Both Crime And Criminal: Courts must weigh the circumstances of both the crime and the accused. 

• "Unquestionably Foreclosed": Death can be imposed only when the alternative of life imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed.  

• Burden On The State: The State must prove, with evidence, that the accused cannot be reformed.  

Individualised Sentencing

• Meaning: Courts must consider the accused's personal, social, psychological and economic background before sentencing. 

• Purpose: This assesses the person's moral culpability and whether reformation is genuinely impossible, so that death is not imposed only because the crime was brutal. 

How Were The Safeguards Eroded And Restored?

Erosion

• Crime-Centric Drift: Machhi Singh (1983) shifted attention towards the crime. As Sangeet (2013) later noted, courts began asking whether there were reasons to give life imprisonment, rather than whether special reasons existed for death.  

• Ravji's Error: In Ravji (1995), a two-judge bench held that crime gravity alone decided punishment.  

• Example: Two people, Ravji and Surja Ram, were executed in 1996 and 1997 under this principle. The Supreme Court later held in Bariyar (2009) that Ravji was decided in ignorance of Bachan Singh. 

Restoration

• Bariyar (2009): Life imprisonment is foreclosed only when reformation is unachievable.  

• Law Commission (2015): The 262nd Report of the Law Commission of India recommended abolishing the death penalty for all crimes except terrorism and waging war.  

• Manoj (2022): The Court directed trial courts to obtain psychological evaluation, prison conduct reports and probation officer reports before deciding a death sentence.  

What Are The Key Challenges In Death Penalty Sentencing?

Rushed Sentencing At Trial Courts

• No Real Hearing: Trial courts often impose death without a meaningful sentencing hearing.  

• Example: A nationwide study of 306 death sentences imposed between 2018 and 2020 found that 36.1% were pronounced on the same day as conviction and 18.4% on the next day. In most cases, the defence offered no mitigation evidence. (Source: Project 39A, National Law University Delhi)

• Continued Use: In 2025, trial courts sentenced 128 people to death. 

Unreliable Investigations

• High Acquittal Rate: Over the past decade, nearly one-third of death sentences reviewed by the High Courts and Supreme Court ended in acquittal.  

• Example: In 2025 alone, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused in 10 of the 19 death penalty cases it decided, repeatedly finding serious flaws in investigation and prosecution.  

• Questionable Evidence: Courts have flagged confessions taken without transparency and forensic evidence of doubtful reliability.

Irreversibility And Inequality

• No Undoing Errors: Execution is final, so any judicial error cannot be corrected.  

• Poor And Marginalised Hit Hardest: Many death-row prisoners come from poor backgrounds and depend on weak legal aid.

Delays In Mercy Petitions

• Death-Row Phenomenon: Long waits on death row cause severe mental suffering, which the Court recognised in Shatrughan Chauhan (2014).   

Way Forward 

Strengthen Sentencing Procedure

• Separate Sentencing Hearings: Courts should hold a distinct hearing with adequate time after conviction, never on the same day.  

• Mandatory Mitigation Investigation: Implement the Manoj (2022) guidelines fully, with trained mitigation investigators. 

• Uniform Framework: A clear, binding sentencing framework would reduce arbitrariness across courts.  

• Example: In 2022, the Supreme Court referred to a five-judge Constitution Bench the question of how and when mitigation must be considered, to ensure a uniform approach to death penalty sentencing.  

Improve Investigation And Legal Aid

• Forensic And Police Reform: Better forensic labs, recorded interrogations and independent investigation can reduce wrongful convictions.  

• Quality Legal Aid: Strengthen legal aid under the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) for those facing capital charges. 

Wider Policy Debate

• Review Capital Offences: Consider the Law Commission's recommendation to limit the death penalty to terrorism-related offences.  

• Global Trends: More than 110 countries have abolished the death penalty in law, but India continues to retain it for the "rarest of rare" cases. 

Conclusion

The Supreme Court has steadily moved death penalty jurisprudence from a crime-centred approach to individualised sentencing and reformation. Real justice, however, depends on trial courts holding genuine sentencing hearings and on investigations reliable enough for an irreversible punishment.

Source: THEHINDU