Death Penalty in India: Judicial Safeguards, Due Process and the Principle of Reformation

Context

Recent Supreme Court judgments have renewed attention on the procedural safeguards required in death penalty cases. The Court has emphasised that capital punishment cannot be based merely on the brutality of a crime. Courts must also examine the personal circumstances of the accused, provide a meaningful opportunity to present mitigating evidence and assess whether the possibility of reformation has genuinely been ruled out.

Constitutional and Legal Framework

1. Article 14: It guarantees equality before the law and protects individuals against arbitrary state action, including arbitrary sentencing.
2. Article 21: It protects life and personal liberty. Any deprivation of life must follow a fair, just and reasonable procedure established by law.
3. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023: Section 393(3) requires a court imposing a death sentence to record special reasons for doing so. It replaces the corresponding provision under Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
4. Judicial confirmation: A death sentence awarded by a Sessions Court must be confirmed by the High Court before it can be executed.
5. Clemency powers: Article 72 empowers the President to grant clemency in death sentence cases, while Article 161 provides the Governor with specified powers to suspend, remit or commute sentences within the State’s executive sphere.

The Rarest of Rare Doctrine: Bachan Singh Judgment (1980)

In Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980), a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the death penalty but restricted its imposition through the rarest of rare doctrine.

The judgment established the following principles:

1. Life imprisonment is the rule: The death penalty must remain an exception and should be imposed only in exceptional circumstances.
2. Special reasons are necessary: Courts must record specific reasons explaining why capital punishment is justified.
3. Individualised sentencing: Courts must consider both the circumstances of the crime and the personal circumstances of the accused.
4. Reformation is central: The death penalty should be imposed only when life imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed as an appropriate punishment.

Individualised Sentencing and the Possibility of Reformation

Individualised sentencing means assessing the circumstances of each accused before deciding the appropriate punishment. Courts must examine:

1. Social background: The accused’s family circumstances, poverty, education and socio-economic conditions should be considered.
2. Psychological condition: The court should examine relevant mental health conditions, trauma and psychological vulnerabilities.
3. Personal history: The accused’s age, antecedents and life circumstances may influence the sentencing decision.
4. Prison conduct: Behaviour during incarceration may provide relevant information about the possibility of rehabilitation.
5. Reformation potential: Courts must assess whether the accused can be rehabilitated and reintegrated into society.

Judicial Developments: From Crime-Centred to Individual-Centred Sentencing

1. Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983): The Court identified factors such as the manner, motive and seriousness of the crime. However, this approach risked giving less importance to the accused’s circumstances. In Sangeet v. State of Haryana (2013), the Court stressed the need to consider mitigating factors.
2. Ravji v. State of Rajasthan (1995): The Court gave greater importance to the nature and gravity of the crime than to the accused’s circumstances. This approach was later held inconsistent with the principles of Bachan Singh.
3. Santosh Kumar Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra (2009): The Court clarified that the death penalty should be imposed only when the possibility of reformation is ruled out. It also stressed balancing aggravating and mitigating factors.
4. Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022): The Court directed judges to consider the accused’s psychological, psychiatric and social background. It also stressed that the State must provide evidence showing that reformation is not possible.

Recent Development: Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. Union of India (2025)

The Supreme Court strengthened safeguards for death-row prisoners.

1. Article 32: A death-row convict can approach the Supreme Court if constitutional safeguards in sentencing were seriously violated.
2. Reconsideration of sentence: Courts can reconsider the death sentence if mandatory safeguards were not followed.
3. Mitigation reports: Courts must consider the accused’s psychological, psychiatric and social background.
4. Procedural fairness: Important safeguards must be followed even after appeals and mercy petitions.
5. Limited reopening: Cases cannot be reopened routinely; there must be a serious violation of safeguards.
6. Thus, the Court upheld Dupare’s conviction but set aside his death sentence for reconsideration.

Gap Between Judicial Principles and Their Implementation

1. Inadequate opportunity for mitigation: A study of 306 death sentences (2018–2020) found that 36.1% were pronounced on the day of conviction and 18.4% the next day, leaving little time for the defence to present mitigating evidence.
2. Continued use of capital punishment: Trial courts sentenced 128 individuals to death in 2025, highlighting the need for strict compliance with judicial safeguards.
3. Risk of wrongful convictions: Nearly one-third of death sentences reviewed by higher courts reportedly resulted in acquittals. In 2025, the Supreme Court acquitted accused persons in 10 of 19 death penalty cases.
4. Weaknesses in investigation: The Vasanta Sampat Dupare case highlighted concerns regarding unreliable confessions, disputed recoveries and questionable forensic evidence.

Major Challenges Associated with the Death Penalty

1. Risk of wrongful execution: Faulty investigations, unreliable forensic evidence and inadequate legal representation can result in wrongful convictions.
2. Unequal access to justice: Economically disadvantaged accused persons may lack access to competent legal assistance and expert support.
3. Inconsistent sentencing: Different interpretations of the rarest of rare doctrine can result in unequal punishment for similar offences.
4. Inadequate mitigation hearings: Trial courts may fail to provide sufficient time and opportunity to examine the accused’s background and possibility of reformation.
5. Irreversibility of punishment: An execution cannot be undone even if new evidence subsequently establishes wrongful conviction.
6. Delayed judicial proceedings: Prolonged death-row confinement and delays in deciding appeals and mercy petitions raise concerns about human dignity and mental suffering.
7. Retribution versus reformation: Excessive emphasis on the severity of the crime may overshadow the constitutional importance of rehabilitation and the possibility of human reform.

Way Forward: Strengthening Judicial Safeguards

1. Meaningful sentencing hearings: Trial courts should provide adequate time after conviction for the defence to present mitigating evidence.
2. Mandatory mitigation reports: Courts should obtain comprehensive psychiatric, psychological and social-history reports before imposing the death penalty.
3. Strengthening legal aid: Accused persons facing capital punishment should receive competent legal representation and access to relevant experts.
4. Evidence-based investigations: Investigating agencies should strengthen forensic procedures, maintain transparency in collecting evidence and prevent unreliable confessions.
5. Uniform sentencing standards: Courts should follow consistent principles for identifying aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
6. Assessing reformation: Courts should examine the possibility of rehabilitation through objective evidence rather than relying solely on the nature of the crime.
7. Accountability of investigation agencies: Independent scrutiny of investigative and prosecutorial failures can help reduce wrongful convictions.
8. Timely judicial review: Appeals, confirmation proceedings and mercy petitions should be decided without unnecessary delays.

FAQs

Q1. What is the rarest of rare doctrine?

Ans: It is a principle established in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980), under which the death penalty can be imposed only in exceptional cases where life imprisonment is unquestionably inadequate.

Q2. What is individualised sentencing?

Ans: Individualised sentencing requires courts to consider the accused’s social, psychological, economic and personal circumstances before deciding the appropriate punishment.

Q3. Who bears the burden of proving that the accused cannot be reformed?

Ans: The State must produce evidence to establish that there is no reasonable possibility of the accused being reformed and rehabilitated.

Q4. What did the Supreme Court decide in Vasanta Sampat Dupare (2025)?

Ans: The Court held that Article 32 can be used in exceptional cases to reopen the sentencing stage when mandatory procedural safeguards in death penalty proceedings have been violated.

Q5. What is the significance of Section 393(3) of the BNSS?

Ans: It requires courts to record special reasons when imposing a death sentence, ensuring that capital punishment is not awarded routinely.

Q6. Why is the possibility of wrongful conviction particularly serious in death penalty cases?

Ans: The death penalty is irreversible. Therefore, investigative errors, unreliable evidence or inadequate legal representation can lead to an injustice that cannot be corrected after execution.