The Constitutionality of Capital Punishment in India – Vedant Pratap Singh 

Introduction 

Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is a highly contentious issue worldwide,  and India is no exception. The debate surrounding the constitutionality of capital punishment  in India involves examining legal, moral, and human rights perspectives. This blog will  explore the constitutional framework, judicial interpretations, and societal implications of  capital punishment in India, providing a comprehensive understanding of its legality and  ethical considerations. 

Historical Context of Capital Punishment in India 

Capital punishment has been a part of the Indian legal system since ancient times. Historical  records indicate that death sentences were prevalent during the reign of various dynasties and  empires in India. With the advent of British colonial rule, capital punishment was  institutionalized through codified laws, including the Indian Penal Code (IPC) of 1860, which  remains in force today. 

Constitutional Framework 

The Indian Constitution, adopted in 1950, is the supreme law of the land and provides the  framework for governance and the protection of fundamental rights. The constitutionality of  capital punishment in India is primarily assessed against the provisions of the following  articles: 

1. Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty: 

 Article 21 states, “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except  according to procedure established by law.” This article is central to the debate on capital  punishment, as it underscores the fundamental right to life. However, it also permits  deprivation of life in accordance with the law, implying that capital punishment is not  inherently unconstitutional if it adheres to legal procedures. 

2. Article 14 – Right to Equality: 

 Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. The  arbitrariness in the application of the death penalty, especially regarding socio-economic  status, religion, and caste, raises concerns about its compatibility with Article 14. 

3. Article 19 – Protection of Certain Rights Regarding Freedom of Speech, etc.:  Article 19 enumerates several freedoms, including speech, assembly, and movement. While  not directly related to capital punishment, the implications of the death penalty on these  freedoms, particularly in terms of chilling effects on freedom of expression, have been part of  broader discussions on the issue.

Judicial Interpretations 

The Supreme Court of India has played a pivotal role in interpreting the constitutionality of  capital punishment. Several landmark judgments have shaped the legal landscape in this  regard: 

1. Jagmohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1973): 

 In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty, asserting  that it did not violate Article 21 as long as it followed the procedure established by law. The  court emphasized that the death penalty should be imposed only in the “rarest of rare” cases. 

2. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980): 

 This landmark judgment further defined the “rarest of rare” doctrine, stating that the death  penalty should be reserved for cases where the alternative of life imprisonment is  unquestionably foreclosed. The court laid down guidelines for trial courts to follow when  considering the death penalty, emphasizing the need for a balance between aggravating and  mitigating circumstances. 

3. Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983): 

 The Supreme Court elaborated on the principles laid down in Bachan Singh, providing  additional clarity on the “rarest of rare” doctrine. The court highlighted factors such as the  manner of the crime, the motive, and the victims’ vulnerability in determining the  appropriateness of the death penalty. 

4. Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014): 

 In this case, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of delay in executing death sentences.  The court ruled that inordinate and unexplained delays in the execution of the death penalty  could be grounds for commutation to life imprisonment, recognizing the psychological  torment experienced by death row convicts. 

Legal Procedures and Safeguards 

India has established a robust legal framework to ensure that the imposition of the death  penalty is carried out with due process and safeguards: 

1. Fair Trial: 

 The right to a fair trial is enshrined in Article 21 and further reinforced by judicial  precedents. Accused individuals facing the death penalty are entitled to legal representation,  the opportunity to present evidence, and the right to appeal. 

2. Clemency Powers: 

 The President of India and the Governors of states have the constitutional power to grant  clemency, including commutation, pardon, or reprieve. These powers serve as an additional  layer of protection for death row convicts, providing an opportunity for mercy in exceptional  cases. 

3. Review and Appeals: 

 Death sentences are subject to automatic review by higher courts, including the High Court  and the Supreme Court. This multi-tiered review process ensures that the death penalty is not  imposed arbitrarily and that errors or miscarriages of justice are rectified.

Societal Implications 

The debate on the constitutionality of capital punishment in India extends beyond legal  interpretations to encompass societal implications: 

1. Deterrence vs. Retribution: 

 Proponents argue that the death penalty serves as a deterrent against heinous crimes and  provides retributive justice for victims and their families. However, empirical evidence on the  deterrent effect of capital punishment remains inconclusive, and critics argue that retribution  is not a sound basis for justice. 

2. Human Rights Concerns: 

 Opponents of the death penalty emphasize its incompatibility with human rights principles,  particularly the right to life and the prohibition of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.  The irreversible nature of the death penalty raises concerns about wrongful convictions and  the execution of innocent individuals. 

3. Socio-Economic and Caste Disparities: 

 Studies have shown that socio-economic and caste disparities influence the application of  the death penalty in India. Marginalized communities and economically disadvantaged  individuals are disproportionately represented on death row, raising questions about systemic  biases and the fairness of the justice system. 

Global Perspective 

The global trend is increasingly moving towards the aboliƟon of the death penalty, with more than  two-thirds of countries having abolished it in law or pracƟce. InternaƟonal human rights  organizaƟons and treaƟes, such as the InternaƟonal Covenant on Civil and PoliƟcal Rights (ICCPR),  advocate for the aboliƟon of capital punishment. India’s stance on the death penalty is oŌen  scruƟnized in the context of its internaƟonal human rights obligaƟons. 

Recent Developments 

In recent years, there have been significant developments related to capital punishment in  India: 

1. Nirbhaya Case (2012): 

 The brutal gang rape and murder of a young woman in Delhi in 2012 sparked widespread  outrage and demands for harsher punishments for sexual crimes. The perpetrators were  sentenced to death, and the case brought renewed attention to the use of the death penalty in  India. 

2. Legislative Amendment: 

 In response to public outcry over heinous crimes, the Indian government has introduced  legislative amendments to expand the scope of capital punishment. For instance, the Criminal  Law (Amendment) Act, 2018, introduced the death penalty for the rape of girls under 12  years of age.

3.Judicial Pronouncements: 

 The Supreme Court continues to grapple with the complexities of capital punishment,  balancing the demands for justice with the principles of human rights and the rule of law.  Recent judgments have reinforced the “rarest of rare” doctrine and emphasized procedural  fairness. 

Conclusion 

The constitutionality of capital punishment in India is a complex and multifaceted issue that  involves legal, moral, and societal considerations. While the Supreme Court has upheld the  death penalty within the framework of the Constitution, it has also emphasized the need for  

stringent safeguards and a cautious approach. The ongoing debate reflects the evolving nature  of societal values and the quest for a justice system that balances retribution, deterrence, and  human rights. 

As India navigates this contentious issue, it must consider the broader global trend towards  abolition and the imperative to uphold the highest standards of justice and human dignity. The  future of capital punishment in India will likely continue to be shaped by judicial  interpretations, legislative actions, and the evolving societal consensus on the ethics and  efficacy of the death penalty.