Key Facts and Data Points

  • Zero confirmations: The Supreme Court did not confirm any death sentence in the past three years (2019‑2022).
  • Acquittals: In 2025, 10 death‑row prisoners were acquitted – the highest in a decade.
  • Trial vs. Appellate disconnect: Sessions Courts handed down 128 death sentences in 2025 (1,310 since 2016); High Courts confirmed only 8.31% of cases placed before them.
  • Death‑row population: 574 inmates as of Dec 2025 – the highest since 2016.
  • Procedural violations: Nearly 95 % of 2025 death sentences were imposed without the mitigation safeguards mandated in Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022).
  • Alternative sentencing: Courts increasingly award "life imprisonment without remission" or long fixed‑term sentences (up to 60 years).

Background and Context

  • Historical roots: Execution provisions existed in the Manusmriti and were codified in the Indian Penal Code (1860). Post‑independence, the death penalty was retained.
  • Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (2023): Retains capital punishment and expands it to offences like mob lynching resulting in death and rape of a minor.
  • Categories attracting death penalty: Approximately 14 offences, including murder, terrorism, abetting mutiny, and certain aggravated sexual offences.

Significance for India / Governance / Policy

  • Human rights: Growing concerns over wrongful convictions, the "death‑row phenomenon" and lack of empirical deterrence evidence.
  • Judicial efficiency: High acquittal rates point to trial‑court errors; reforms can improve the quality of investigations and trials.
  • Policy debate: Balances public demand for retributive justice with constitutional guarantees of life and dignity.

Constitutional / Legal Provisions

  • Article 32: Right to constitutional remedies – allows death‑row convicts to approach the Supreme Court.
  • Article 39A: State must provide competent legal representation for the indigent.
  • Article 72: Presidential power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or commutations.
  • Article 161: Governor’s similar pardoning power (usually exercised on the President’s advice).
  • Article 21: Right to life and personal liberty – interpreted to include the right against cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (relevant to the "death‑row phenomenon").

Landmark Supreme Court Judgements

  • Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P. (1973) – upheld constitutional validity of death penalty.
  • Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) – introduced the "rarest of rare" doctrine.
  • Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) – laid down five‑point guidelines to identify "rarest of rare" cases.
  • Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014) – delay in execution amounts to torture; execution of mentally ill persons unconstitutional.
  • Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022) – mandatory mitigation reports (psychological, prison conduct, social background) before death sentencing.
  • Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. Union of India (2025) – reinforced procedural safeguards under Article 32; limited review to rare procedural lapses.

Law Commission Stance

  • 35th Report (1967) – supported death penalty.
  • 187th Report (2003) – acknowledged procedural flaws but did not call for abolition.
  • 262nd Report (2015) – recommended abolition for all crimes except terrorism and related offences.

Arguments For the Death Penalty

  • Retributive justice – proportional punishment for heinous crimes.
  • Deterrence theory – perceived as the ultimate deterrent.
  • Taxpayer burden – long‑term incarceration of dangerous offenders is costly.
  • Public opinion – surveys after high‑profile cases (e.g., Nirbhaya) show ~70 % support.

Arguments Against the Death Penalty

  • No empirical deterrence – studies (UN, Justice Verma Committee) show no conclusive evidence.
  • Judicial arbitrariness – "rarest of rare" remains subjective.
  • Risk of wrongful execution – irreversible miscarriage of justice.
  • Socio‑economic bias – poor defendants lack quality defence.
  • Human rights concerns – "death‑row phenomenon" considered torture.

Needed Reforms

  1. Strict adherence to Manoj guidelines – no death sentence without comprehensive mitigation analysis.
  2. Standardised sentencing framework – establish a Sentencing Council to codify "rarest of rare" criteria.
  3. Evidence‑based policing – shift from confession‑centric to forensic‑based investigations.
  4. Life imprisonment without remission – codify as statutory alternative.
  5. Implementation of Article 39A – ensure competent legal aid at trial stage.
  6. Parliamentary action – consider Law Commission’s 262nd Report recommendations.

Conclusion

The death penalty remains an irreversible punishment in a reversible system. Until India moves towards a restorative justice model, the "rarest of rare" doctrine must be applied with utmost judicial scrutiny.

Mains Practice Question

Critically examine the effectiveness of the “rarest of rare” doctrine in ensuring fairness and consistency in death‑penalty sentencing in India.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

  1. What is the “rarest of rare” doctrine?
  • Principle from Bachan Singh (1980) limiting death penalty to exceptional cases where life imprisonment is unquestionably inadequate.
  1. What safeguards were mandated in Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022)?
  • Mandatory mitigation reports from probation officers, jail authorities and mental‑health experts before awarding death penalty.
  1. What is the significance of Articles 72 and 161?
  • They grant the President and Governors the power to pardon, reprieve or commute death sentences, subject to judicial review.
  1. What is the “death row phenomenon”?
  • Prolonged solitary confinement and psychological trauma of inmates awaiting execution, recognized as torture.
  1. What alternative to the death penalty is increasingly used by courts?
  • Life imprisonment without remission or long fixed‑term sentences.

Prepared for UPSC – Drishti IAS