ABSTRACT
The article dilates on the “Rarest of Rare Case Doctrine” in its application to the death penalty, a hotly debated subject in global and Indian jurisprudence. While the death penalty may act as a deterrent, questions regarding its humaneness and constitutional validity have remained a burning issue. The doctrine, which makes the rarest of rare cases the sole criterion for imposing capital punishment, was laid down in Bachhan Singh v. State of Punjab. This article describes the evolution of the death penalty in India, the judicial interpretation, and the criteria that constitute rarest of rare cases. It also appraises opposed views, the safeguards laid down by the judiciary, and ends with recommendations for ensuring justice and uniformity in the imposition of the death penalty.
Keywords: punishment, judiciary, penalty, crime
INTRODUCTION
Capital punishment remained a subject of fierce debate for many centuries. In olden times, the issue centered on moral, punitive, and human rights. Such a punishment was codified into the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, and has also found a place in various statutes: the Sati Prevention Act, 1987, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
With the introduction of the Rarest of Rare Case Doctrine in Bachhan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980), it becomes strongly insisted that capital punishment should be administered in equally rigorous cases and is applicable in very few cases where severity of crime and magnitude in society warrant an extreme measure thereof. Although the strict application of doctrine was formulated within its limitations, it nevertheless remains under great debate regarding its implementation on ground level against the judicial subjectivity, and whether or not attends the values contained in the Constitution.
HISTORICAL AND LEGAL EVOLUTION OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
The Hadd Laws of Babylon, as inscribed in Hammurabi Code in the 18th century BCE, provided for the death penalty for 25 crimes. Ancient Indian texts mention death sentences, although the modes of execution and justifications thereof changed over time. The Indian Penal Code made death a punishment per se in 1860, listing various crimes that may be punished by death, especially murder and treason.
The post-independence constitutional debates raised questions if the death penalty could still be sustained. The Supreme Court, in Jagmohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1973), upheld punishment of the death penalty and concluded that it did not violate Article 21 of the Constitution entitled the right to life. This decision would later be followed by Rajendra Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1979, which set boundaries on adjudging the death sentence, taking into consideration certain extra extreme occasions. This was resettled and elaborated upon in Bachhan Singh (1980) where the Rarest of Rare Case Doctrine was framed requiring judges to weigh the aggravating and mitigating grounds in the case before passing the death sentence.
DEFINING THE RAREST OF RARE DOCTRINE
The Rarest of Rare Doctrine, introduced in Bachhan Singh v. State of Punjab(1980), lays a proper scheme for restraining the application of capital punishment to the most extraordinary cases. This doctrine, in turn, is an attempt to balance the theory of retributive justice with the sanctity of life-so that the death penalty must be neither arbitrary nor routine in its application.
Further extension of the doctrine was observed in Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) where the Specific criteria for consideration to hold the case among the “rarest of the rare” have been laid down by the Supreme Court. These are the manner of murder, motive behind the commission of the crime, the nature and circumstances of the crime, its impact on society, and the status of the victim. Crimes characterized as hideous and causes public outrage, for instance, gruesome murders, or cases dealing with child victims or weaker sections of the community, fit into this doctrine. Moreover, capital punishment may also be justified in cases where the consequences of the crime have a strong impact on society or where the victim is of public interest or symbolic stature.
In the Nirbhaya Case (Mukesh v. State for NCT of Delhi, 2017)itself, the Court affirmed that the death penalty is to be applied upon the accused, considering the heinous nature of the crime, and the subsequent attack on the public conscience as a whole. Such judgments highlight the tendency of the common good to address crimes that shock society’s collective conscience, notwithstanding the violation of individual rights of the citizens.
For although the guidelines endeavor to equalize against patently unequal treatment, the doctrine underscores that capital punishment ought to be an exception, to be applied primarily in cases calculated to provoke the utmost outrage for which lesser sentences are manifestly inadequate.
JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION AND CRITICISM
While the doctrine might provide a framework for sentencing, judicial interpretation has been made the target of criticism due to inherent subjectivity. In Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra (2009), for instance, the court stated that capital punishment should be imposed only when rehabilitation is impossible in a situation when life imprisonment would be inadequate to deliver justice, While the subjective interpretation of the judges might lead to inconsistency, the basic principle of equality in justice thus gets weakened.
Furthermore, the opponents of the death penalty claim that it is inherently biased against the oppressed and marginal communities who often find it difficult to afford capable persons to defend them properly. Organizations like Amnesty International have suggested that socio-economic factors may play a critical role in deciding punishments and consequently make them central to the possibility of misuse. In addition, greater delays in executions cause greater mental agony to the inmates on death row, which additionally raises concerns regarding the fairness of the process.
APPLICATION AND PROCEDURE SAFEGUARDS:
Capital punishment in India is rendered only after a prolonged series of acts of justice to prevent miscarriage:
- Trial and Sentencing: The Sessions Courts impose the death penalty on a conviction, which must be confirmed by the High Court under Section 366 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
- Appellate Review: The High Court may confirm, commute, or enhance the sentence. Appeals to the Supreme Court are permissible.
- Executive Clemency: Convicts can seek mercy from the President (Article 72) or Governor (Article 161).
Judicial guidelines, in relation to sentence, stress fairness and transparency.
CRITICISM OF DEATH PENALTY
The criticism is manifold. In the first place, it does not serve as a deterrent. Research showed that countries with low crime were more active in rehabilitation than in capital punishment. Secondly, its arbitrary application through judicial subjectivity also erodes public confidence in the system of justice. Opponents argue that the whole administration of the sentencing process is so arbitrary that the end results do not always seem to be the same.
Also, the human rights activists argue that the death penalty is a violation of the right to life and the right to dignity, both guaranteed by international conventions and the Indian Constitution. The delays between the judgment of death and its execution raise practical moral concerns as the delay, in effect, produces tremendous mental and emotional attack on the convicted persons. These arguments put together, therefore, lend cogent support to the demand for judicial restraint and reform.
SUGGESTIONS FOR REFORM
On the basis of some of these observations, reformations to eradicate or, rather, alleviate the shortcoming could be made. Suggestions include defining appropriate sentencing guidelines that would assist a court in deciding clearly when the death penalty ought to be applied. Court procedures should endorse rehabilitation and restorative justice in dealing with the causes of crime, giving rehabilitation to the capable and extending protective justice. Such directions will also include quickening judicial proceedings and placements to avoid challenges in delayed justice for victims and convicts.
Extensive compensation for victims along with witness protection schemes would further support restorative justice by facilitating more help for survivors of violence. Finally, there should be public debate on the death penalty as a relevant punishment on command. These discourses would have allowed for a more seasoned and knowledgeable debate surrounding policy creation to later impact a shift towards `humane’ alternatives to the death penalty in line with the evolving values and norms in society.
CONCLUSION
The Rarest of Rare Doctrine is India’s exercise in administering justice to human mindset in the judgments regarding a capital punishment. Death, theoretically valid in the Constitution, should be so exercised under intense scrutiny that no error or injustice occurs. Thus, with a tempered approach and wider social reforms, justice may be done without conflicting with human dignity.
As India progresses through time, it should rethink whether capital punishment needs to be reconsidered in terms of its relevance or impact. By creating the justice system, which is fair, proportional, and respectful of human life, the nation would certainly advance toward a more humanistic and equitable society.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY SAGORIKA MUKHERJEE
