The jurisprudence surrounding the imposition of the death penalty in India underwent a significant transformation with the Supreme Court's judgment in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1980 SC 898]. The Court established the 'rarest of rare' doctrine, which mandates that the death sentence should be imposed only in exceptional circumstances. This paper delves into the intricacies of this landmark ruling and explores the implications of the subsequent judgment in Mithu v. State of Punjab [AIR 1983 SC 473], which declared Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) unconstitutional for violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Introduction
The death penalty has long been a contentious issue within the Indian legal system, balancing the scales between the demands for justice and the sanctity of human life. The landmark case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab redefined the parameters within which capital punishment could be judicially sanctioned. This case introduced a judicial threshold, limiting the imposition of the death sentence to the 'rarest of rare' cases, thereby ensuring a judicious and restrained application. Subsequently, Mithu v. State of Punjab further scrutinized the constitutionality of mandatory death sentences under Section 303 IPC, fortifying the protection of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21.

Factual Matrix
In Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, the appellant, Bachan Singh, was convicted of murder and sentenced to death under Section 302 IPC. The constitutional validity of the death penalty was challenged on the grounds that it violated Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. The appellant contended that the imposition of the death penalty constituted an arbitrary and discriminatory practice, thereby infringing upon the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

In Mithu v. State of Punjab, the appellant challenged the constitutionality of Section 303 IPC, which mandated the death penalty for a convict who commits murder while serving a life sentence. The appellant argued that this provision was arbitrary and violated the principles of equality and the right to life enshrined in Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

Legal Issues:

• Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab:
  • Whether the imposition of the death penalty under Section 302 IPC violates Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
  • What criteria should guide the judiciary in determining the 'rarest of rare' cases warranting the death penalty.
• Mithu v. State of Punjab:
  • Whether Section 303 IPC, mandating the death penalty for life convicts who commit murder, violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

Judicial Pronouncements
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab:
The Supreme Court, in a majority judgment, upheld the constitutional validity of the death penalty under Section 302 IPC but circumscribed its application by introducing the 'rarest of rare' doctrine. The Court asserted that life imprisonment is the rule, and the death penalty is an exception. The criteria for determining 'rarest of rare' cases include the manner of commission of the crime, the motive behind the crime, the nature of the crime, and the circumstances of the criminal. The Court held that a balance must be struck between aggravating and mitigating circumstances to determine whether the death penalty is warranted.

Mithu v. State of Punjab:
The Supreme Court declared Section 303 IPC unconstitutional, ruling that it violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The Court opined that the mandatory imposition of the death penalty without judicial discretion was arbitrary and discriminatory. It emphasized that every individual, regardless of their prior convictions, is entitled to the protection of fundamental rights and the opportunity for judicial review of their sentence.

Analysis
The judgments in Bachan Singh and Mithu reflect the Supreme Court's nuanced approach to the death penalty, ensuring that the imposition of such a severe punishment is not arbitrary and is reserved for the most heinous and egregious offenses. The 'rarest of rare' doctrine introduced in Bachan Singh serves as a judicial safeguard, emphasizing the sanctity of human life and the need for a thorough examination of each case's unique circumstances before imposing the death penalty.

The ruling in Mithu further reinforces this stance by abolishing the mandatory death penalty provision under Section 303 IPC. By doing so, the Court underscored the importance of judicial discretion and the need to evaluate each case on its merits, thereby preventing arbitrary deprivation of life.

Conclusion
The jurisprudence established by Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab and Mithu v. State of Punjab marks a pivotal moment in the Indian legal landscape concerning capital punishment. These judgments collectively strive to balance the demands of justice with the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution, ensuring that the death penalty is imposed only in the most exceptional and deserving cases. The 'rarest of rare' doctrine and the emphasis on judicial discretion underscore the judiciary's commitment to upholding the principles of equality, justice, and human dignity.

Citations:

• Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898.
• Mithu v. State of Punjab, AIR 1983 SC 473.