This article is written by Pragati Trivedi, NIMS University Rajasthan, Jaipur
The death penalty is the greatest claim of State authority, the irreparable taking away of life. With a constitutional democracy based on dignity, equality and liberty, the concept of legitimacy of capital punishment is bound to pose some serious ethical and legal dilemmas. This constitutional dilemma was resolved authoritatively in India in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684. The Supreme Court had the responsibility of deciding whether or not capital punishment on murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was in breach of the fundamental rights provided under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
The case was presented at a historical moment in constitutional jurisprudence. Just two years previously, in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the Supreme Court had broadened the definition of Article 21, and it was determined that any “procedure established by law” must be just, fair, and reasonable. This interpretative proliferation overturned the constitutional review establishing that the courts could no longer only look at whether law existed but also whether it was fair and reasonable.
It is on this basis that Bachan Singh turned into a constitutional turning point. There was a need to balance two conflicting imperatives in the Court: the sanctity of life under Article 21 and the right of the State to administer the death penalty under the interest of justice. This would define the future of capital sentencing in India.
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980)
The Constitution Bench was constituted by the Chief Justice, Y.V Chandrachud, Justice, A.C Gupta, Justice, N.L Untwalia, Justice, P.S Kailasam and Justice, P.N Bhagwati (dissenting). The petitioner, who had been found guilty of several murders, did not only appeal his death penalty, but also the constitutionality of the death penalty as a whole.
The petitioner argued that the death penalty:
- Infringed Article 21 in a deprivation of life in an arbitrary way;
- Violated Article 14 because of inconsistent sentencing results;
- Was unproportionate and irreconcilable with new standards of human dignity.
A majority (4:1) affirmed the constitutionality of capital punishment. Nevertheless, the Court placed severe qualifications to ensure arbitrary application.
It held that:
- Mostly, the rule is life imprisonment.
- The death penalty is an exemption.
- Courts have to record “special reasons” under Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
- Sentencing should entail a precise balance of aggravating and mitigating factors.
- The only cases in which death penalty can be given are the “rarest of the rare” situations when life imprisonment is indubitably insufficient.
The Court focused on the individualized sentencing – the concept that judges have to look beyond the nature of crime and analyse the circumstances of the offender, age, background, probability of reform, and socio-economic circumstances.
The dissent was a strong one by Justice P.N. Bhagwati. He claimed that capital punishment is itself arbitrary and more often than not the poor and the marginalized are the ones who suffer. He based his criticism on the constitutional worth of human dignity and campaigned against the irreversibility of judicial error.
Most of them, however, acted on the fact that procedural protections, trial, appeal, confirmation by the High Court, and the need to have special reasons all meant that the Article 21 requirement of fairness was met.
Constitutional and Jurisprudential Significance
Bachan Singh is the constitutional compromise on abolition and retention. The Court exercised judicial restraint by refusing to abolish capital punishment since the Court realized that such significant policy decisions should be left to the legislative branch of government to make. It also at the same time brought constitutional morality into sentencing.
Three fundamental tenets are manifested:
- Proportionality – The punishment has to be within the severity of the crime and the guilt of the criminal.
- Individualized Sentencing – Courts need to evaluate the situation of the offender including the chances of reforming him.
- Guided Discretion – Article 14 requires that judicial discretion should be designed to avoid arbitrariness.
Regardless of these protection measures, criticism has continued. Scholars argue that:
- The doctrine does not have specific standards.
- Sentencing results are still uneven.
- Capital sentencing is influenced by socio-economic differences.
The empirical studies have indicated that the marginalized groups are overrepresented among the people on the death row provoking questions of equality before the law.
However, Bachan Singh does not lose its binding precedent. It is one of the humanization of capital punishment under the constitutional boundaries of the judiciary, despite arguments on abolition taking place worldwide.
Case Laws
1. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
This interpretative framework of Bachan Singh cannot be grasped out of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India. In that landmark case, the Supreme Court discarded a limited interpretation of Article 21 and stated that any law which takes away life or liberty should meet requirements of fairness, reasonableness, and non-arbitrariness.
The Court had used this extended doctrine in Bachan Singh. It found it to be not contrary to Article 21 per se given that the capital sentencing under Section 302 IPC was combined with procedural safeguards and organization of discretion under Section 354(3) CrPC.
In such a way, the Court supported the law and constitutionalized its implementation.
2. Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983)
It is the rarest of the rare doctrines that were expounded in Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470. The Court tried to list the types of situations that can be considered the reason to sentence a death penalty, including:
- Extreme brutality in murders;
- Multiple murders;
- Shock crimes that translate to outrage in the society.
This categorization was made to do so as to provide clarity but it faced criticism. The appeal to “collective conscience” has been seen as bringing in subjectivity and emotional judgment of sentencing.
3. Mithu v. State of Punjab (1983)
In Mithu v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court invalidated Section 303 IPC that required some offenders to be sentenced to death. The Court believed that the imposition of death sentences is unconstitutional under Article 21 since it removes discretion and personalized sentencing by the judiciary.
This ruling strengthened the constitutional themes expressed in Bachan Singh – especially the need to exercise discretion guided by its principles.
Later Developments and Judicial Refinement
In later jurisprudence, a hint of judicial unease is observed at using the doctrine of the rarest of the rare inconsistently. In Santosh Kumar Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra, the Court did recognize mistakes in sentencing and insisted on the principled approach to the doctrine.
Additionally, Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India believed that commutation can be used where there is undue delay in deciding mercy petitions, having considered that even post-conviction, Article 21 guarantees are still in force.
These rulings reflect a developing jurisprudence which although officially maintaining the death penalty is putting more and more restrictions on its use.
Conclusion
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab is the watershed in the Indian constitutional jurisprudence. In the process of protecting the sanctity of life and simultaneously limiting the death penalty to the most extreme of extreme occasions, the Supreme Court tried to balance the criminal justice requirements and the sanctity of life.
The ruling did not put an end to the ethical debate of capital punishment. Rather it constitutionalised restraint. It changed sentencing into a discretion-based approach to a constitutional practice driven by proportionality, individualization and procedural protections.
Bachan Singh still influences Indian criminal jurisprudence even more than 40 years afterward. It has a lasting legacy in not establishing the power of the State, but restricting it. The constitutional line between justice and irreversible punishment is the rarest of rare doctrine until one day people move to abolish it by law.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What did Bachan Singh decide?
It affirmed the constitutional legitimacy of the death penalty but restricted the death penalty to exceptionally unusual situations.
2. What were the provisions in the constitution that were reviewed?
Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India.
3. What is the rarest of rare doctrine?
It means death penalty may be imposed only when life imprisonment is unquestionably inadequate, and the crime is exceptionally grave.
4. Was there a dissent?
Yes. Justice P.N. Bhagwati dissented, arguing that capital punishment violates fundamental rights and human dignity.
5. Has the doctrine faced criticism?
Yes. Critics argue that it lacks objective standards and results in inconsistent sentencing outcomes.
