Abstract
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) is a milestone in Indian Constitutional and Criminal Jurisprudence. By a 4:1 majority, the Court upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code while introducing the doctrine that it may only be imposed in the “rarest of the rare” cases.
This article examines the historical background of capital punishment in India, the issues raised before the Court, the reasoning of both the majority and dissenting opinions, and the impact of the doctrine in subsequent case law. It also situates the ruling in the broader context of international human rights developments and the recommendations of the Law Commission of India.
The article concludes by reflecting on whether the rarest of the rare doctrine has succeeded in reconciling the death penalty with constitutional guarantees of fairness, equality, and dignity.
Introduction
Capital punishment has long been one of the most divisive issues in criminal justice. India, like many other former colonies, inherited the death penalty from British law.
After independence, despite global momentum toward abolition, the Indian Penal Code of 1860 continued to prescribe the death penalty for murder and certain other offences. The question of whether capital punishment could survive constitutional scrutiny arose soon after the adoption of the Constitution.
- In Jagmohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1973), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty, reasoning that the choice between life and death was made through a fair judicial process.
- However, this judgment predated the expansive interpretation of Article 21 in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), which established that any procedure depriving a person of life or liberty must be just, fair, and reasonable.
Against this backdrop, Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) presented the Court with a fresh constitutional challenge to the death penalty.
Constitutional Issues before the Court
The petitioner argued that the death penalty violated Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
- It was contended that capital punishment was cruel and inhuman, amounting to an arbitrary deprivation of life.
- Its inconsistent application across cases and states, they argued, made it discriminatory under Article 14.
- The arbitrariness in judicial discretion was itself unconstitutional.
The State’s defense:
- Parliament had deliberately retained the death penalty after considering the 35th and 41st Reports of the Law Commission.
- Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, introduced in 1973, required judges to record “special reasons” for imposing a death sentence, thus ensuring procedural safeguards and limiting arbitrariness.
The Judgment of the Court
The Constitution Bench, by a narrow 4:1 majority, upheld the constitutional validity of the death penalty.
- Section 302 of the IPC and Section 354(3) of the CrPC were not unconstitutional.
- Article 21 allows for deprivation of life provided it is done according to a “procedure established by a law”.
- The Court held that the procedure laid down by the CrPC was fair, as it required judges to balance aggravating and mitigating circumstances and provide special reasons for imposing death.
The Doctrine Introduced:
The Court held that the death penalty should be reserved for the “rarest of the rare” cases, where the alternative of life imprisonment would not suffice. This doctrine significantly narrowed the application of capital punishment, underscoring that it must remain an exception and not the rule.
Justice Bhagwati’s Dissent
Justice P.N. Bhagwati delivered a powerful dissent, declaring the death penalty unconstitutional.
- He held that the punishment was arbitrary and discriminatory in its application, as it depended heavily on the personal philosophy of individual judges.
- No constitutional safeguard could prevent the inherently unequal and unfair operation of capital punishment.
- For him, the death penalty violated both Articles 14 and 21, as it was not based on any rational principle that could ensure consistency.
His dissent has been widely praised for its human rights orientation and continues to influence abolitionist arguments in India.
Development of the Doctrine in Later Cases
The Supreme Court further elaborated the “rarest of rare” doctrine in subsequent rulings:
- Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983): Identified categories of cases that could shock the collective conscience of society.
- Mitthu v. State of Punjab (1983): Invalidated Section 303 of the IPC, which made the death penalty mandatory for life convicts committing murder, ruling it unconstitutional as it stripped courts of discretion.
- Santosh Kumar Satishbhusan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra (2009): Stressed the importance of considering mitigating factors and warned against mechanical application of the doctrine.
- Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014): Held that delay in deciding mercy petitions could itself be a ground for commuting death sentences.
These cases show that while Bachan Singh laid the foundation, the doctrine’s practical application has remained inconsistent.
International Perspectives
Globally, the death penalty has increasingly been seen as incompatible with human rights, particularly the right to life and the prohibition of cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment.
- The ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) allows capital punishment only in limited circumstances but favors eventual abolition.
- The Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR (1989) explicitly advocates abolition, and most countries have since moved toward eliminating the death penalty.
India, however, retains capital punishment for crimes such as murder, terrorism, and drug trafficking, despite repeated calls from international bodies to move toward abolition.
The Law Commission’s Reports
The Law Commission of India has played a significant role in shaping the debate:
- 35th Report (1967): Recommended retaining the death penalty, citing India’s social conditions.
- 41st Report (1969): Supported safeguards through CrPC reforms.
- 262nd Report (2015): Marked a shift by recommending abolition for all crimes except terrorism-related offences.
The 262nd Report emphasized the absence of deterrent effect, the risk of arbitrariness, and constitutional concerns highlighted in Bachan Singh and later cases.
Conclusion
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) remains a defining case in Indian Constitutional and Criminal Law.
- By upholding the constitutionality of the death penalty, the Court aligned itself with legislative intent.
- By introducing the “rarest of rare” doctrine, it imposed a constitutional limitation that transformed sentencing practices.
Over four decades later, the doctrine continues to guide courts but has not eliminated arbitrariness. Justice Bhagwati’s dissent and later Law Commission reports echo the persistent concerns.
As international law moves decisively toward abolition, India’s continued retention of the death penalty stands in contrast to its constitutional ideals of dignity, equality, and fairness.
The legacy of Bachan Singh is thus both enduring and ambivalent — a compromise between constitutional morality and legislative policy, but also a reminder of the limitations of judicially crafted doctrines in resolving deep moral dilemmas.
References
Cases
- Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 S.C.C. 684 (India).
- Jagmohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1973) 1 S.C.C. 20 (India).
- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 S.C.C. 248 (India).
- Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 S.C.C. 470 (India).
- Mitthu v. State of Punjab, (1983) 2 S.C.C. 277 (India).
- Santosh Kumar Satishbhusan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 6 S.C.C. 498 (India).
- Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India, (2014) 3 S.C.C. 1 (India).
Statutes
- The Constitution of India.
- Indian Penal Code, No. 45 of 1860, S.302.
- Code of Criminal Procedure, No. 2 of 1974, S.354(3).
Reports
- Law Comm’n of India, 35th Report on Capital Punishment (1967).
- Law Comm’n of India, 41st Report on The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (1969).
- Law Comm’n of India, 262nd Report on the Death Penalty (2015).
International Instruments
- International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Art. 6, Dec. 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171.
- Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Dec. 15, 1989, 1642 U.N.I.T.S. 414.
Also Read:
Rights of undertrial prisoners in India
How To Send A Legal Notice In India
