Death Penalty

Must Read

Should the Exorbitant Amounts Charged for RT-PCR Tests be Refunded?

Introduction A plea has been filed in the Honourable Supreme Court of India seeking a refund of exorbitant amounts charged...

Should CCTV’s be Installed in the Police Station?

Introduction In a recent judgment, the bench led by Justice Nariman issued directions to both the state and Union Territory...

A Legal Analysis of the West Bengal Political Crisis on IPS Deputation

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has recently summoned three IPS officers of West Bengal (WB). The decision was...

Explained: Postal Ballot for NRIs

At the end of November 2020, Election Commission sent a proposal to the law ministry to amend the Representation...

Explained: Constitutional Provisions and Legislations With Regards to a Person with Disabilities

The world celebrates December 3 as International Day of Persons with Disabilities (IDPD). This day is also called World...

“Pro-Enforcement Bias” Towards Foreign Arbitral Awards Domestically, in light of Vijay Karia and Ors. V. Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi S.R.L and Ors.

International Arbitration faces challenges domestically due to unharmonized local laws for enforcement. Often it may occur that an award...

Follow us

One of the main pre-requisites of law in the society is that it should be dynamic. This change occurs from time to time in accordance with the needs of the society, and that is the reason why democracy as a way of governing the subjects evolved and various other laws we see today are exactly in contradiction to the laws which were existing a long time ago. The law relating to punishment has been questioned in this regard, as to whether the State has the power to take away the fundamental right to live which has been given by the nature. The 262ndLaw Commission Report recommended that the capital punishment or death penalty should be abolished from the Indian legal system, which should instead follow the procedure advised by the human rights activists.

But the question remains as to whether the State should have such power so as to take away life? Whether the offence committed by the person convicted is grave enough to justify the taking away of his life? Death penalty has always been a contentious issue throughout the world which incepted from the minds of human rights activists thereby involving judges of the highest courts in the country which is evident through various judicial pronouncements. A recent deliberation came out in 2003 from the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra, wherein arguments were made in pursuance of death penalty awarded to the convict and its constitutionality. The Court pertaining to the constitutionality of the subject referred the matter to the Law Commission for its opinion in this regard. The Law Commission is a body established by the Government of India to look into the contemporary issues arising in the legal avenue of the country and also to make recommendations on the legal reforms that can be looked upon by the legislature. The Commission being a body comprising of legal experts receives references either from the Parliament or the Supreme Court or otherwise, it can even take up matters suo moto to decide upon.

The role of the judiciary has been widened in adjudging the matters relating to certain heinous offences such as murder, rape etc. wherein the Judges have been empowered to impose death penalty if they deem fit. India has primarily been following the reformative theory of punishment which provides that the purpose of punishment should be such so as to ensure that the person can be placed again in society but the difference would be that he won’t commit any further crime. On the other hand, the deterrent theory reflects that the purpose of punishment should be such as the other subjects of the state would be deterred from performing the crime again while the retributive theory finds its basis in the principle of “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”. It has been contended that death penalty works as a deterrent factor in the society, but there has been no such deterrence that has been found acting in the society because of such punishment. It is ironic to note here that the Law Commission which has recommended that death penalty should be abolished this time, earlier in its 35th Report, on the same subject, presenteda counter view. The Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC),, prior to independence, provides that if a crime has punishment of death penalty as an option and if the Court is not imposing the same, the reasons for the same have to be mandatorily recorded in the judgement. But, after Independence in 1955, the Parliament by way of an amendment removed such a provision. But when in 1973 the provisions provided therein were reformed, an entire opposite view point of the 1898 Code of Criminal Procedure, under Section 354(3) was incorporated which specified that whenever death sentence is imposed as punishment, “special reasons” are to be provided for such an imposition. More dilution of this occurred when the Supreme Court delivered the judgement in Bachan Singh’s case providing with the guidelines that death penalty should only be imposed in cases of “rarest of the rare” nature, though failing to define it. Thus, even though the judgement was widely celebrated, it again left room for judicial discretion and opinion of the judges in categorising the cases under the head of “rarest of rare”. This power of adjudging on the convict’s right to live is much criticised as there were variations evident in the judgements of the Court on facts of similar nature.

There are organisations which have been lobbying with different Governments of the world for abolishing death penalty. At present, 140 countries of the world have abolished death penalty. There have been many Resolutions which have been passed from the United Nations for imposing a moratorium on the punishment of death penalty and India has always voted against it. Also, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, right to life has been provided with such a broad aspect incorporating that the States should abolish capital punishment. Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1976 further states that there should not be any sentence of death imposed on the convicts below 18 years of age. Many nations such as Iran, China, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United States of America still have not abolished death penalty. There are also varied kinds of execution which have being used around the world such as beheading, electrocution, hanging, lethal injection and shooting in the back of the head. In India, hanging and shooting are the ways which are prescribed by the law for execution. But shooting from back is only there in the Army Act, Navy Act and the Air Force Act, otherwise, hanging is the practice which is being used for execution of death penalty.

Another contention which is being used for opposing the death penalty is that if the Court makes a mistake, it may be fatal and is irreparable.  However, the Constitution has provided the President and the Governor with the powers of clemency by virtue of Articles 72 and 161 respectively. But the problem with this provision of law is that the decision on the mercy petition is not being taken for very long periods of time. The Supreme Court recently said that when the mercy petitions have not been decided by the President for a long period of time, this imposes double sentence on the convict as while in the prison, he is also suffering from the fear of death which is inhumane. The support for abolishing death penalty in the country has also increased in recent times. In August 2015, Tripura Assembly also passed a resolution in favour of the same while the political parties such as Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist Liberation) [CPI (M-L)], the Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi (VCK), the Manithaneya Makkal Katchi (MMK), the Gandhiya Makkal Iyakkam (GMI), the Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (MDMK), and the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) have openly supported the abolishment. Also, 2 private member bills are on the floor of the Parliament out of which, one is by Kanimozhi in the Rajya Sabha while D. Raja has proposed the same in Lok Sabha.

The argument from the human rights perspective seems vague when cases of 26/11 Mumbai terrorist attack, Parliamentary attack of 2001 come forward and people demand for capital punishment of such convicts. If, for argument’s sake, let us say that the punishment for terrorist attacks should be capital punishment, but at the same time, other instances which are barbaric in nature such as Nithari killings and Delhi gang rape case should also not be exempted from this. In conclusion, it may be stated that the present position of law as set up by Bachchan Singh’s case and Section 354(3) of CrPC seems to be perfect in nature. Also, if the Supreme Court provides with specific guidelines and better interpretation of the ratio of Bachchan Singh’s case, then the contentions regarding arbitrariness could also be settled.

Latest News

Petition Filed in Delhi High Court Challenging the New Privacy Policy of WhatsApp

A petition has been raised before the Delhi High Court challenging the updated privacy policy of the instant messaging app, WhatsApp. It is accused of looking into the virtual activities of the users,

Bombay High Court Says Pleas Against the Rejection of Nomination Before the Polls Is Not Maintainable

Bombay High Court on Wednesday held that a candidate cannot challenge his nomination by filing a writ petition before a court prior to the polls after his nominations have already been rejected by the Returning Officer (RO) for the Panchayat elections of January 15.

Bombay HC: It Will Be Difficult if Civic Bodies Don’t Take Action on Illegal Constructions

The Bombay High Court said on Wednesday that if the Municipal Corporations do not take action on the illegal constructions, things will become very difficult. This observation was made by a bench comprising Chief Justice Dipankar Dutta and Justice Girish Kulkarni while hearing a PIL after the Bhiwandi building collapse on September 21st, 2020 which led to the death of 39 lives. Mumbai Thane, Ulhasnagar, Kalyan-Dombivli, Vasai-Virar, Navi Mumbai, and Bhiwandi-Nizampur corporations were filed as respondents.

Uttarakhand High Court Directed State Authorities To Frame SOP Regarding Kumbh Mela 2021

Noticing the commencement date of Kumbh Mela 2021 amid pandemic from 27 February 2021, the Uttarakhand High Court on Monday expressed concern with regard to organizing and conducting of the Mela and directed State Authorities to discuss and resolve the logistical problems which can come in organizing the Mela during the pandemic time.

Writ Petition Not Maintainable Against Mahindra Finance, Being a Purely Private Body: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court reiterated that Writ Petition against the purely private body is not maintainable and dismissed the petition which was filed against Mahindra Finance Bank as Arif Khan v. Branch Manager Mahindra Finance Sultanpur & Another.

Publication of Notices for Inter-Faith Marriages No Longer Mandatory: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has passed a landmark judgment that likely brings relief to inter-faith marriage. The Court on Wednesday said that the mandatory publication of Notices of Inter-Faith marriages will now be optional to protect the Privacy and Liberty of the Couple. The Court observed that the publication of the notice would “invade the fundamental rights of liberty and privacy”. Therefore, it has made it optional for the couple, they can now request in form of writing to a marriage officer to publish or not to publish a notice regarding the marriage.

Bombay High Court to NIA: Consider Health and Age of Varavara Rao Before Opposing His Bail Plea

The Bombay HC on Wednesday observed that ‘we are all humans’ and asked the National Investigation Agency and the Maharashtra Government to consider the health and age of the Telugu poet-activist Varavara Rao before making submissions in response to his bail plea application on medical grounds.

Supreme Court Agrees To Examine Centre’s Plea To Keep Adultery a Crime in Armed Forces

The Centre appealed to the Supreme court on Wednesday, pleading that the 2018 judgment of decriminalizing adultery under IPC must not apply to the armed forces. The Supreme Court in a path-breaking verdict in 2018 decriminalized adultery and declared all its provisions unconstitutional as it diminishes the value of women, but maintained that it continues to be a ground for divorce.

Supreme Court Examines the Pollution in Yamuna River for the Second Time

The Supreme Court on Wednesday made a second attempt to clean the Yamuna river by taking a Suo Moto Cognizance of significantly high levels of ammonia water discharged from neighbouring states like Haryana into Delhi.

Fetus Suffering From Anencephaly, Woman’s Plea To Terminate 28-Weeks Pregnancy Allowed by Delhi HC

Based on the report of the medical board constituted by AIIMS, the Delhi High Court on Monday allowed a petition filed by a woman seeking the termination of her 28-weeks pregnancy. They said in its report that the fetus suffered from anencephaly, a disorder where the skull bone is not developed and was thus incompatible with life, therefore her fetus can be aborted.

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -