India’s death row population stood at 574 prisoners — 550 men and 24 women — as of December 31, 2025, marking a 43.5% rise since 2016. Yet, beneath this increase lies a striking judicial pattern: while trial courts continue to impose death sentences, higher courts are increasingly reluctant to confirm them. Data from the Annual Death Penalty Statistics Report released by the Square Circle Clinic suggests growing appellate scrutiny and systemic concerns about trial-level adjudication.
Rising Death Row Population: What the Numbers Show
Nearly 45% of prisoners on death row were convicted of murder, while 37% were convicted of murder involving sexual offences. The overall growth in death row numbers reflects continued use of capital punishment at the Sessions Court level.
However, this increase must be understood alongside another trend — a rising number of prisoners being removed from death row since 2020 due to acquittals, commutations, or appellate relief. The data suggests a widening gap between sentencing at trial courts and confirmation at higher judicial levels.
Trial Courts vs Appellate Courts: A Growing Divergence
Over the past decade:
- Sessions Courts imposed 1,310 death sentences across 822 cases.
- 842 of these sentences were reviewed by High Courts for confirmation.
- Only 70 sentences (8.31%) were upheld by High Courts.
- Of 37 cases decided by the Supreme Court, none resulted in confirmation.
The number of confirmations by High Courts has declined by more than 60% since 2019. Notably, the Supreme Court of India has not confirmed a single death sentence in the last three years. In 2025 alone, it acquitted and released 10 death row prisoners — the highest such figure since 2016.
This trend indicates a cautious appellate judiciary increasingly unwilling to affirm capital punishment without rigorous scrutiny.
High Acquittal Rates and Regional Variation
Of the 1,085 death sentence cases decided by High Courts over the last decade, 34.65% resulted in acquittals — a substantial proportion.
The highest acquittal rates were recorded in:
- — 78.31%
- — 50.46%
- — 46.97%
- — 44.44%
- — 41.51%
Such high acquittal rates raise serious questions regarding evidentiary standards, procedural safeguards, and consistency in capital sentencing at the trial stage.
Concerns Over Fair Trial and Evidence Handling
The report attributes the increasing removal of prisoners from death row to appellate courts’ hesitance in confirming death sentences. This hesitance appears rooted in concerns about:
- Improper handling or appreciation of evidence by Sessions Courts.
- Procedural lapses affecting fair trial guarantees.
- Failure to adequately apply the “rarest of rare” doctrine.
- Insufficient consideration of mitigating circumstances.
The “rarest of rare” principle, evolved through judicial interpretation, requires courts to impose capital punishment only when life imprisonment is unquestionably inadequate. If higher courts repeatedly overturn death sentences, it suggests inconsistencies in applying this constitutional standard.
Implications for Criminal Justice Policy
The divergence between trial courts and appellate courts has broader implications:
- It underscores the irreversible risk of wrongful execution.
- It raises questions about training and guidelines for trial judges in capital cases.
- It strengthens arguments for systemic reform or reconsideration of capital punishment.
- It reflects an evolving judicial philosophy increasingly cautious about irreversible penalties.
At the same time, the rise in death row numbers indicates that capital punishment remains embedded in India’s penal framework, particularly in cases involving murder and sexual violence.
What to Note for Prelims?
- The “rarest of rare” doctrine governs the imposition of the death penalty in India.
- Death sentences imposed by Sessions Courts require confirmation by the High Court.
- The has not confirmed a death sentence in the past three years.
- High Courts have acquitted over one-third of death sentence cases in the past decade.
What to Note for Mains?
- Critically analyse the consistency of capital sentencing in India.
- Discuss the constitutional and ethical dimensions of the death penalty.
- Examine the role of appellate review in safeguarding fair trial rights.
- Link to GS Paper II (Judiciary, governance) and GS Paper IV (Ethics and justice).
