Why in news ?
- A NALSA–NALSAR Square Circle Clinic (2025) report shows the Supreme Court has not confirmed any death sentence in the last three years, indicating rising judicial caution toward capital punishment.
- 10 death-row acquittals by the Supreme Court in 2025, the highest in a decade, highlight serious concerns about trial accuracy and sentencing standards.
- Data reveal a sharp disconnect between Sessions Courts and appellate courts, raising questions about fairness, evidence appreciation, and sentencing procedures in capital cases.
Relevance
- GS2 (Polity): Judiciary, Article 21, criminal justice
- GS2 (Governance): Due process, legal aid
Basics and background
- Capital punishment in India is legally valid but restricted to the “rarest of rare” doctrine evolved in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980).
- Death penalty may be awarded for crimes like terrorism, certain aggravated murders, and rape-murder of minors under IPC/BNS and special laws.
- India retains death penalty but uses it sparingly compared to many retentionist countries, with long appellate and mercy review layers.
Constitutional and legal dimensions
- Article 21 permits deprivation of life only by just, fair, and reasonable procedure, forming the constitutional basis for strict scrutiny in death cases.
- Machhi Singh (1983) refined “rarest of rare” by balancing crime and criminal test, requiring consideration of mitigating circumstances.
- Manoj v. State of MP (2022) mandated psychological evaluation and mitigation investigation before awarding death penalty.
- Vasanta Sampat Dupare (2015) elevated fair sentencing hearing to a due process requirement.
Data and evidence
- 1,310 death sentences imposed by Sessions Courts between 2016–2025, indicating continued trial-level reliance on capital punishment.
- Of 842 High Court decisions, only 70 confirmed (8.31%), while 411 commuted and 285 resulted in acquittals, showing high appellate correction rates.
- Supreme Court decided 37 confirmed-HC cases: 15 acquittals, 14 commutations, zero confirmations in last three years.
- 574 prisoners on death row (2025)—550 men, 24 women—with average 5+ years on death row, some nearing a decade.
Governance and judicial process dimension
- High reversal rates indicate systemic weaknesses in investigation, evidence appreciation, and legal aid quality at trial stage.
- Nearly 95% of 2025 death sentences violated SC sentencing guidelines, lacking mitigation studies or psychological reports.
- Sentencing hearings often held within days of conviction, undermining individualised sentencing and defence preparedness.
Social and ethical dimension
- Prolonged death row incarceration creates “death row phenomenon”—mental trauma recognised in jurisprudence as rights concern.
- Disproportionate impact on economically weaker and legally underrepresented accused, raising equality and fairness concerns.
- Ethical debate persists between retributive justice vs reformative justice approaches.
International and comparative dimension
- 140+ countries globally are abolitionist in law or practice (Amnesty data), indicating global shift away from capital punishment.
- International human rights bodies increasingly view death penalty as incompatible with evolving standards of dignity and human rights.
- India remains a retentionist but low-execution country, with very few actual executions in recent decades.
Challenges and criticisms
- Arbitrary application despite “rarest of rare” doctrine leads to sentencing inconsistency explaining high appellate reversals.
- Weak mitigation investigation and poor legal aid reduce fair trial guarantees.
- Delays in appeals and mercy petitions prolong uncertainty and psychological suffering.
- Lack of empirical evidence that death penalty has greater deterrent effect than life imprisonment.
Way forward
- Institutionalise mitigation investigation units and trained sentencing specialists for capital cases.
- Ensure mandatory compliance with Manoj guidelines before confirming death sentences.
- Strengthen legal aid and forensic standards at trial level.
- Consider Law Commission’s earlier recommendations favouring progressive abolition except for terrorism-related offences.
- Move toward life imprisonment without remission as proportionate alternative in heinous crimes.
