Introduction
Every year on 10 October the world stands against the death penalty, the global community observes this day as a World Day Against the Death Penalty, this day is dedicated to raise awareness about the cruelty, irreversibility, and implication of human rights when it comes to capital punishment. If we see, more than two-thirds of the world have abolished this punishment in law but still nations like India, the United States, and Japan continue to retain the death penalty as a punishment.
If we talk about philosophical standpoint, John Locke in his Second Treatise of Government opined that the people who violate social contract by committing acts like murder invariably forfeit their own right to life. In contrast, Cesare Beccaria opposed this view in his work On Crimes and Punishments asserting that the state has no moral right to take what it cannot restore, and when we read Rousseau he took a middle path as he suggested that social contract permits society to punish offenders but when it comes to execution it should be reserved for cases where the criminal’s existence poses a direct threat to society. This divergence reignites an age-old debate: Can the State, which guarantees the Right to Life as a fundamental right, also reserve the power to take it away when it comes to the death penalty?
This question is not only moral but it is deeply constitutional asit challenges the very foundation of modern democracies which promises dignity, liberty, and justice. India, a nation which stands on these principles, continues to grapple with this paradox.
Constitutional Framework
The Right to Life is enshrined under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution is a fundamental right which states: “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” As it states “except according to procedure established by law” therefore on the surface, this provision appears to permit the death penalty. However, if we analyse the evolution of Article 21 through landmark case laws we will gather that it also guarantees human dignity. In the landmark ruling of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court expanded the scope of Article 21 and held that “procedure established by law” must be fair, just, and reasonable. This judicial expansion invariably led to a constitutional dilemma — if life is protected under fundamental right, can the state ever take it without violating the essence of human dignity?
The constitutionality of the death penalty was challenged in the case Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P. (1973), where the hon’ble Supreme Court upheld it by stating that capital punishment is given only after a fair trial and hence it does not in any sense violate Article 21. However, the Court in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980), refined its stand as it upheld the death penalty but introduced the “rarest of rare” doctrine, thereby restricting death penalty to cases where the punishment of life imprisonment would be “unquestionably inadequate.” This judgment also acknowledged the fact that while the death penalty is constitutional, it should be considered one of the exceptional punishments.
Later, in the case of Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983), the Court clarified on the point that what comes under “rarest of rare.” As this doctrine at times is subjective in nature and its interpretation can lead to inconsistencies. It is also important to understand that judicial discretion, emotional reasoning, and societal pressure have blurred the line between the rarest and the routine.
Human Rights and Global Trends
If we see globally, the right to life is considered as a non-derogable right, meaning thereby it cannot be suspended even during emergencies. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) Article 3 and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) emphasize this right as a basic human right and the second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, which was adopted in 1989 explicitly aims at the abolition of the death penalty. Currently over 140 countries have abolished the death penalty as a punishment in law or practice. The European Union makes abolition of the death penalty a precondition for being a member of the EU, while the African Commission on Human Rights has called for a moratorium. India being a signatory to the ICCPR, has yet not acceded to the Second Optional Protocol, putting under the ambit of “sovereign discretion” and the need for it is to create deterrence in heinous crimes and deliver justice to victims.
Critical Review
If we talk about the death penalty as a deterrence, the empirical evidence does not conclusively support the deterrence theory. If we look at the studies conducted by the UN and Amnesty International we will gather that it reveals no significant correlation between the presence of the death penalty and lower homicide rates. Furthermore there can be the risk of wrongful conviction which can be a threat to justice. As we know, the Indian criminal justice system is burdened by procedural delays and human error, and cannot ensure absolute certainty. In cases like Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014) the Court said that several death sentences take place due to delay in mercy petitions that invariably underscore the psychology of “death row convicts” as it is a punishment within punishment. It is also important to note that if justice is about reformation then the irreversible nature of the death penalty wholly contradicts the very spirit of a humane justice system.
Protection of human dignity is a core constitutional value, so if we simultaneously uphold the legality of the death penalty it creates a constitutional paradox meaning thereby, where the same Article 21 that guarantees life also allows its deprivation and the court’s reliance on the “rarest of rare” doctrine has not resolved this paradox rather it gave subjectivity.
As today the world marks the Day Against the Death Penalty, India still stands at a crossroads between tradition and transformation. It is to be specifically noted that abolishing the death penalty does not mean in any sense condoning crime; it would invariably strengthen by ensuring that criminal punishment never crosses the threshold of cruelty because true justice lies not in taking life, but in affirming the possibility of redemption, reform, and restoration. By this Indian justice system would be transformed into one that truly upholds the right of life by fulfilling not just the rights stated granted by the Constitution, but its spirit.