Context: The Supreme Court has progressively strengthened procedural safeguards in death penalty cases to ensure fair sentencing, individualised justice and protection of human dignity.
In Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980), the Court upheld the constitutional validity of the death penalty but restricted its imposition to the rarest of rare cases.
In Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022), it prescribed practical guidelines requiring mental health assessments, prison conduct reports and other mitigating information before sentencing.
Bachan Singh Judgment (1980): Rarest of Rare Doctrine
Constitutional validity: A Constitution Bench upheld the death penalty but established safeguards against its arbitrary imposition.
Life imprisonment as the rule: Under Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), now Section 393(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, life imprisonment is the norm and death penalty requires special reasons.
Individualised sentencing: Courts must consider both the circumstances of the crime and the individual circumstances of the accused.
Unquestionably foreclosed test: Death penalty can be imposed only when the alternative of life imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed.
State's burden: The prosecution must establish through evidence that the possibility of reformation of the accused does not exist.
Exceptionality Principle: Human Dignity and Reformation
Meaning of rarest of rare: Exceptionality is not determined merely by how uncommon or brutal an offence is; it is based on a commitment to the dignity of human life.
Individualised assessment: Courts must examine the accused's social, psychological and structural circumstances to determine their moral culpability and potential for rehabilitation.
Reformation as a sentencing objective: Death penalty is justified only when the possibility of reforming the accused is effectively ruled out.
Judicial Departure from Bachan Singh Safeguards
Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983): Shifted the focus towards the gravity and circumstances of the crime rather than maintaining the individualised sentencing approach. The Supreme Court subsequently criticised this crime-centric interpretation in Sangeet v. State of Haryana (2013).
Ravji v. State of Rajasthan (1995): A two-judge Bench held that the nature and gravity of the crime, rather than the circumstances of the accused, should determine punishment. This contradicted the binding principles of Bachan Singh.
Consequences: Ravji was executed in May 1996 and Surja Ram in April 1997, despite the legal principle underlying their sentences subsequently being declared erroneous.
Restoration of the Reformation Principle
Santosh Kumar Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra (2009): The Supreme Court held that Ravji was decided in ignorance of Bachan Singh and noted that its erroneous principle had influenced at least six other death penalty cases.
Clarification: Life imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed only when the objective of reformation is unachievable.
2012 development: Fourteen retired Supreme Court judges described the executions of Ravji and Surja Ram as the gravest known miscarriage of justice in independent India.
262nd Law Commission Report (2015): Emphasised reformation and rehabilitation as important considerations in death penalty sentencing.
Deficiencies in Trial Court Sentencing
Despite judicial emphasis on reformation, trial court sentencing remained largely crime-centric.
A nationwide study of 306 death sentences (2018–2020) found:
36.1% of death sentences were pronounced on the same day as conviction.
18.4% were pronounced on the following day.
In most cases, the defence neither argued nor presented evidence on mitigating circumstances.
This indicated inadequate opportunity for individualised sentencing and meaningful consideration of the accused's circumstances.
Manoj Judgment (2022): Strengthening Procedural Safeguards – In Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022), the Supreme Court prescribed practical guidelines to ensure evidence-based individualised sentencing.
Mental health evaluation: Assessment of the accused's mental health and psychological condition.
Custodial conduct report: Information regarding the accused's behaviour and conduct during incarceration.
Probation officer's report: Assessment of the accused's social background, circumstances and prospects of reformation.
Meaningful defence opportunity: The accused must receive a genuine opportunity to present mitigating evidence before sentencing.
Subsequent Judicial Developments
Suo motu Writ Petition: The Supreme Court emphasised that the defence must receive a real and meaningful opportunity to present mitigating material. The matter has been referred to a Constitution Bench.
Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. Union of India (2025): Held that compliance with Manoj guidelines flows from Articles 14 and 21. A death sentence imposed without a compliant sentencing hearing is unconstitutional and can be reopened even after attaining finality.
Waris v. State of Madhya Pradesh (September 2026): The Court upheld the conviction for rape and murder of a child but commuted the death sentence because the State failed to produce evidence excluding the possibility of reformation. The gravity of the crime alone could not establish that life imprisonment was unquestionably foreclosed.
Continuing Implementation Gap
Death sentences in 2025: Trial courts sentenced 128 people to death.
Non-compliance: In 95.18% of cases where compliance could be assessed, trial courts failed to follow the procedure prescribed in Manoj.
Implication: Judicial safeguards have evolved, but their implementation at the trial court level remains inadequate.
Concerns Regarding Investigation and Prosecution
Nearly one-third of death sentences decided by the High Courts and Supreme Court over the preceding decade ultimately resulted in acquittals.
Supreme Court findings (2025): The Court acquitted accused persons in 10 of the 19 death penalty cases it decided, highlighting serious defects in investigations and prosecutions.
Vasanta Sampat Dupare judgment: Highlighted concerns regarding confessions obtained without transparency and forensic evidence of doubtful reliability.
Irreversibility: Given the possibility of wrongful conviction and investigative failures, death penalty decisions require the highest standards of procedural fairness and evidentiary scrutiny.
Constitutional and Legal Significance
Article 14 – Right to Equality: Requires non-arbitrary and fair sentencing procedures.
Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty: Death penalty can be imposed only through a constitutionally fair, just and reasonable procedure.
Due process in sentencing: Fairness must extend beyond determining guilt to deciding the appropriate punishment, including a meaningful opportunity to establish mitigating circumstances.
State's responsibility: The State must establish through evidence that the accused has no realistic possibility of reformation before seeking capital punishment.
Way Forward
Institutionalise mitigation hearings: Ensure a separate and meaningful sentencing hearing after conviction in every death penalty case.
Mandatory compliance: Strictly implement the Manoj guidelines across trial courts.
Strengthen defence representation: Provide access to legal, psychological, social and forensic experts to present mitigating evidence.
Improve investigations: Strengthen forensic infrastructure, accountability and transparency in criminal investigations.
Prioritise reformation: Ensure that the possibility of rehabilitation is assessed through evidence rather than assumptions based on the brutality of the crime.
Conclusion: From Bachan Singh to Manoj and Dupare, the Supreme Court has progressively strengthened the constitutional safeguards governing capital punishment. These safeguards are not acts of judicial mercy but essential conditions for protecting human dignity, preventing wrongful executions and ensuring that the death penalty is imposed only through a fair and constitutionally valid process.
Important Cases at a Glance
Judgment
Key principle
Bachan Singh (1980)
Rarest of rare doctrine; life imprisonment is the rule.
Incorrectly prioritised crime over circumstances of the accused.
Bariyar (2009)
Reaffirmed reformation as a central sentencing consideration.
Sangeet (2013)
Criticised the crime-centric interpretation of sentencing.
Manoj (2022)
Practical guidelines for collecting mitigating evidence.
Vasanta Sampat Dupare (2025)
Manoj-compliant hearing is constitutionally mandatory.
Waris (2026)
Death sentence commuted due to failure to rule out reformation.
Prelims Question
Q1. With reference to the judicial evolution of death penalty jurisprudence in India, consider the following pairs:
Judicial decision
Principle established
1. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980)
Death penalty restricted to the rarest of rare cases
2. Santosh Kumar Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra (2009)
Reformation and rehabilitation must be central considerations in sentencing
3. Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022)
Mandatory consideration of mitigating circumstances, including mental health and prison conduct
4. Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. Union of India (2025)
A death sentence imposed without a compliant sentencing hearing can be constitutionally challenged even after attaining finality
How many of the above pairs are correctly matched?
(a) Only one (b) Only two (c) Only three (d) All four
Answer: (d)
Explanation:
Pair 1 is Correct: Bachan Singh upheld the constitutional validity of capital punishment but restricted it to the rarest of rare cases.
Pair 2 is Correct: Bariyar reaffirmed that the possibility of reformation must be considered and that life imprisonment is foreclosed only when reformation is unachievable.
Pair 3 is Correct: Manoj prescribed evidence-based assessment of mental health, social background, prison conduct and prospects of reformation.
Pair 4 is Correct: Dupare emphasised that compliance with Manoj safeguards flows from Articles 14 and 21 and that non-compliant sentencing can be reopened even after finality.
