Capital punishment, also called the death penalty, is the execution of an offender sentenced to death after conviction by a court of law of a criminal offence. It is the highest penalty awardable to an accused.
The constitutionality of the death penalty in India has been a subject of extensive legal scrutiny and debate, particularly in relation to fundamental rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court of India has delivered several landmark judgments that have shaped the legal landscape regarding capital punishment. Here is an overview of the constitutional framework surrounding the death penalty, along with key Supreme Court judgments.
Constitutional Framework
Articles Involved
- Article 14: Guarantees the right to equality before the law and equal protection of the laws.
- Article 19: Protects certain rights related to freedom of speech and expression, assembly, association, movement, residence, and profession.
- Article 21: Ensures the right to life and personal liberty, which has been interpreted to include various rights associated with a dignified life.
The death penalty is viewed through the lens of these articles, particularly Article 21, which is often cited in arguments against capital punishment.
Key Supreme Court Judgments
1. Jagmohan Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (1973).
In this landmark case, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the death penalty. the five judge bench of the Supreme Court, by a unanimous verdict, upheld the constitutional validity of death penalty held that capital punishment was not violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 and . In this case the validity of death sentence was challenged on the ground that it was violative of Articles 19 and 21 because it did not provide any procedure. It was contended that the procedure prescribed under Cr. P.C. was confined only to findings of guilt and not awarding death sentence. The Supreme Court held that the choice of death sentence is done in accordance with the procedure established by law. It was observed that the judge makes the choice between capital sentence or imprisonment of life on the basis of circumstances and facts and nature of crime brought on record during trial. The Court ruled that deprivation of life under Article 21 is permissible if done according to a procedure established by law. It emphasized that judges must consider various circumstances when deciding between a life sentence and capital punishment. The judgment established that capital punishment could be imposed if justified by proper legal procedures.
2. Rajendra Prasad vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (1979).
This case introduced a more critical perspective on the death penalty. Justice Krishna Iyer argued against its constitutionality, stating that it should only be applied in cases where there is a persistent threat to society. He emphasized that special reasons must be recorded for imposing the death penalty and that it should only be applied in extraordinary circumstances.
3. Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab (1980).
In this pivotal ruling, a five-judge bench established the "rarest of rare" doctrine for imposing the death penalty. The majority opinion held that while capital punishment is not inherently unconstitutional, it should be reserved for only the most heinous crimes where life imprisonment is inadequate as a punishment. Justice Bhagwati dissented, arguing that capital punishment is unconstitutional under Articles 14 and 21.In this case, the five judge bench of the Supreme Court overruled its earlier decision in Rajendra Prasad.
4. Machhi Singh vs. State of Punjab (1983)
The Supreme Court elaborated on what constitutes "rarest of rare" cases deserving capital punishment. The judgment outlined specific circumstances under which the death penalty may be warranted, including brutal murders that provoke public outrage or crimes committed with extreme cruelty.
5. Mithu vs. State of Punjab (1983).
In this case, Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code (which mandated death for certain offenses without allowing judicial discretion) was struck down as unconstitutional for violating Articles 14 and 21. The Court emphasized that mandatory death sentences deny judges the ability to consider mitigating circumstances.
6. Triveniben vs. State of Gujarat (1989).
The Supreme Court reaffirmed its stance on the constitutionality of the death penalty, stating that it does not violate constitutional provisions as long as it adheres to established legal procedures and principles set forth in previous judgments.
Conclusion
The constitutionality of the death penalty in India remains a complex issue shaped by evolving judicial interpretations and societal attitudes towards capital punishment. While the Supreme Court has upheld its legality under certain conditions, it has also emphasized that it should be used sparingly and only in exceptional cases where no other punishment would suffice to address the gravity of the crime committed. The ongoing discourse reflects broader concerns about human rights, justice, and societal safety within India's legal framework.
No comments:
Post a Comment