Death Penalty Discrepancies in Indian Judiciary

The Indian judiciary recently faced scrutiny regarding its application of the death penalty. Two murder convictions resulted in vastly different outcomes, reigniting debates on the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine. This doctrine lacks a clear statutory definition, leading to varied interpretations by judges.

Recent Cases Highlighting Judicial Discrepancies

On January 20, 2025, Sanjay Roy was sentenced to life imprisonment for the rape and murder of a postgraduate trainee doctor in Kolkata. The court deemed the crime did not meet the ‘rarest of rare’ criteria despite its heinous nature. In contrast, Greeshma was sentenced to death for the murder of her partner, Sharon Raj, through poisoning. The court classified this case as one of the rarest of rare, reflecting a stark inconsistency in judicial outcomes.

The ‘Rarest of Rare’ Doctrine

• The ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine was established by the Supreme Court in 1980 during the Bachan Singh versus State of Punjab case.
• This doctrine allows for the death penalty only in exceptional circumstances.
• However, the Supreme Court did not provide a clear definition, leading to confusion. In 1983, the court provided some clarity in the Machhi Singh versus State of Punjab case, outlining five categories justifying the death penalty.

Framework Established by the Supreme Court

The five categories identified by the Supreme Court include

• Manner of committing murder: extremely brutal acts that provoke community outrage.
• Motive of the murder: revealing total depravity.
• Socially abhorrent nature: targeting minority community members.
• Magnitude of the crime: the severity of the act.
• Personality of the offender: crimes against vulnerable individuals.

Judicial Revisions and Constitutional Challenges

In 1983, the Supreme Court struck down Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code, which mandated the death penalty for certain offenders. The court ruled this violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Consequently, all murder cases must be judged under Section 302, which allows for either the death penalty or life imprisonment.

Current Developments in Death Penalty Application

In September 2022, the Supreme Court referred a matter to a Constitution Bench regarding the need for a structured approach to mitigating circumstances in death penalty cases. This could lead to a more uniform application of the death penalty, addressing the ambiguities surrounding the ‘rarest of rare’ classification.

Ongoing Controversies

The death penalty’s application in India remains contentious. Despite the Supreme Court’s framework, the absence of a universally accepted definition for ‘rarest of rare’ continues to grant judges discretion. This inconsistency raises questions about fairness and equality in the judicial process.

Questions for UPSC:

1. Critically examine the implications of the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine on the death penalty in India.
2. Discuss the evolution of the death penalty in India with reference to landmark Supreme Court cases.
3. Explain the significance of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India in relation to capital punishment.
4. What are the challenges faced by the Indian judiciary in maintaining consistency in death penalty cases? Discuss with suitable examples.

Answer Hints:

1. Critically examine the implications of the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine on the death penalty in India.

1. The doctrine allows for the death penalty in exceptional cases, but lacks a clear definition, leading to varied interpretations.
2. Judicial discretion can result in inconsistent sentencing outcomes, as seen in recent cases.
3. The absence of a statutory framework complicates the application of the death penalty.
4. It raises questions about fairness and equality before the law, particularly for marginalized groups.
5. Public perception and societal outrage may influence judicial decisions, impacting the doctrine’s application.

2. Discuss the evolution of the death penalty in India with reference to landmark Supreme Court cases.

1. The 1972 Jagmohan Singh case upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty, establishing judicial discretion.
2. In 1980, the Bachan Singh case introduced the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine, though without a clear definition.
3. The Machhi Singh case (1983) outlined five categories justifying the death penalty, providing some clarity.
4. The Mithu case (1983) struck down mandatory death penalties, reinforcing the need for judicial consideration of circumstances.
5. Recent developments include a 2022 referral for structured approaches to mitigating circumstances in death penalty cases.

3. Explain the significance of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India in relation to capital punishment.

1. Article 14 guarantees equality before the law, ensuring that all individuals are treated fairly in judicial processes.
2. Article 21 provides the right to life and personal liberty, raising concerns over the arbitrary application of the death penalty.
3. Judicial interpretations of these articles have shaped the discourse around the death penalty’s constitutionality.
4. Inconsistent application of the death penalty can violate these constitutional rights, leading to potential injustices.
5. These articles serve as a foundation for challenging unfair death penalty sentences in the courts.

4. What are the challenges faced by the Indian judiciary in maintaining consistency in death penalty cases? Discuss with suitable examples.

1. Lack of a universally accepted definition of ‘rarest of rare’ leads to varied judicial interpretations, as seen in the Roy and Sharon cases.
2. Judicial discretion can result in disparate sentencing outcomes, raising concerns about fairness.
3. Inconsistent application of mitigating circumstances complicates the decision-making process for judges.
4. Public and media influence may pressure judges, affecting their impartiality in capital cases.
5. Complex legal frameworks and frequent revisions can create confusion, impacting the judiciary’s ability to apply the death penalty uniformly.