Death Penalty and Human Rights: Why It Should Be Abolished

"An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind" - Mahatma Gandhi

Introduction: The Contemporary Debate

In recent times, there has been an intense debate in society on whether the death penalty should be abolished. Supporters argue that it is necessary to deter heinous crimes and to satisfy the collective conscience of society. Opponents, including me, believe that the death penalty violates fundamental human rights, is applied arbitrarily, and does not actually reduce crime.

I am fully in favour of abolishing the death penalty, even in so-called "rarest of rare" cases. Below, I set out my reasons, supported by constitutional principles, international human rights law, recent judicial trends in India, and global developments.

1. Death Penalty vs. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution

Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides:

"No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law."

Supporters of the death penalty argue that because of the phrase "except according to procedure established by law", the State has the legal authority to take a person's life if a law permits it and a court follows that law.

However, in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that any "procedure established by law" must be fair, just and reasonable. A law or procedure that is arbitrary, oppressive or unreasonable would violate Article 21.

The death penalty, by its very nature, permanently takes away the right to life. It is irreversible and leaves no room to correct judicial errors. When we see how inconsistently and arbitrarily it is imposed, it becomes difficult to say that the "procedure" which leads to death sentences is really fair, just and reasonable. In this sense, the continued existence of the death penalty stands in tension with the true spirit of Article 21.

2. Violation of International Human Rights Standards

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), 1948, recognises in Article 1 that:

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights."

The idea of the State deliberately taking a human life as punishment is fundamentally inconsistent with human dignity. Modern human rights thinking increasingly treats the death penalty as a violation of the right to life and the prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.

Globally, the trend is clearly towards abolition. A large and growing majority of United Nations member States have abolished the death penalty in law or in practice. Many democratic countries - in Europe, Latin America, Africa and elsewhere - no longer execute anyone. Repeated resolutions of the UN General Assembly have called for a moratorium on executions with a view to total abolition.

By retaining and occasionally using the death penalty, India finds itself on the side of a small minority of countries that still carry out executions, even as the global standard of human rights moves steadily in the opposite direction.

3. The "Rarest of Rare" Doctrine Is Arbitrary

In Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty, but limited its use to the "rarest of rare" cases where the alternative of life imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed. Unfortunately, this doctrine is not defined in any substantive or procedural law. There is no clear statutory test to decide what exactly is "rarest of rare".

As a result, the decision effectively depends on the personal views and moral beliefs of individual judges. One bench may find a particular case to be "rarest of rare" and deserving of death, while another bench in a similar case may award life imprisonment. This leads to inconsistency and arbitrariness, which violates the principle of natural justice and equality before law.

Judges are human beings, not infallible. They can be influenced by public opinion, media pressure, or their own personal background. When the consequence is the irreversible taking of a human life, such subjectivity and inconsistency are extremely dangerous.

4. Reformative Justice and the Possibility of Error

In Bachan Singh, the Supreme Court spoke of giving death penalty only when the offender cannot be reformed and rehabilitation is impossible. But in practice, there is rarely a thorough scientific assessment of whether a person can be reformed. Many death row prisoners come from extreme poverty, lack of education, and traumatic backgrounds. With proper psychological, social and vocational support, they may be capable of change.

Former Supreme Court judge Justice Kurian Joseph has himself stated that the system of awarding death sentences is arbitrary and not consistent with constitutional values and humanitarian principles. He has called for a re-examination of the death penalty jurisprudence in India, recognising that the existing approach fails to guarantee fairness and consistency.

Further, wrongful convictions are a reality in every criminal justice system. When the punishment is death, a wrongful conviction means a permanent and irreparable miscarriage of justice. No apology, compensation or review can bring back a life once it has been taken by the State.

5. Recent Developments in India

(a) Law Commission of India (262nd Report)

In 2015, the 262nd Report of the Law Commission of India examined the death penalty in detail. After studying deterrence, arbitrariness in sentencing, and international trends, the Commission recommended abolition of the death penalty for all crimes except terrorism-related offences. It clearly concluded that the death penalty does not serve any penological purpose that cannot be served by life imprisonment.

Although Parliament has not yet implemented these recommendations, the report is an important recognition, by an official expert body, that the death penalty is unnecessary and incompatible with a modern constitutional democracy.

(b) Judicial Doubts and Dissents

In Chhannu Lal Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh (2018), Justice Kurian Joseph, in a powerful dissent, noted that death sentences in India are "arbitrarily and freakishly imposed" and urged a reconsideration of Bachan Singh. He emphasised that the inconsistency in applying the "rarest of rare" test undermines the legitimacy of the death penalty itself.

(c) Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022)

In Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022), the Supreme Court acknowledged serious problems in the way sentencing is carried out in capital cases. The Court held that before imposing the death penalty, courts must:

• Collect detailed information about the accused's childhood, social and economic background;
• Consider mental health, psychological reports and possibility of reform;
• Ensure that sentencing is "individualised" and not mechanical or based only on the brutality of the crime.

This judgment shows a clear move towards a more rigorous and humane approach to sentencing, which naturally reduces the scope for awarding the death penalty.

(d) Reopening Death Sentences under Article 32: The Dupare Case

In 2025, in Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. Union of India, the Supreme Court took an even more significant step. Dupare, who had been sentenced to death for the rape and murder of a four-year-old child and had already exhausted all appeals and mercy petitions, approached the Court under Article 32.

The Supreme Court held that it can reopen the sentencing stage in death penalty cases if the mandatory safeguards laid down in Manoj were not followed. The Court set aside its earlier confirmation of his death sentence and directed that the question of sentence be reconsidered. This shows the Court's growing concern about procedural fairness and the risk of arbitrary death sentences.

(e) Trends in Sentencing and Commutations

Recent data show that the Supreme Court of India has become increasingly cautious in confirming death sentences. In 2024, for the second consecutive year, the Supreme Court did not confirm any death sentence. Instead, many death sentences have been commuted to life imprisonment by the Supreme Court and various High Courts.

For example, in 2025, the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court commuted the death sentence of a man convicted of murdering his 16-year-old daughter, holding that though the crime was heinous, it did not qualify as a "rarest of rare" case. This judgment once again highlights how courts are often reluctant to cross the final line into taking a life, and prefer life imprisonment instead.

6. Recent Global Developments

Internationally, the movement against the death penalty is stronger than ever. A very large majority of countries have either abolished the death penalty in law for all crimes, or have stopped using it in practice. Only a small group of States still regularly carry out executions.

The United Nations General Assembly has repeatedly passed resolutions calling for a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty worldwide. In the most recent such resolution, more than two-thirds of UN member States voted in favour of a global moratorium. This demonstrates a clear international consensus that the death penalty has no place in a modern human rights framework.

At the same time, reports from organisations like Amnesty International show that where the death penalty continues to be used, it is often associated with violations of due process, discrimination, political repression and the use of capital punishment for non-violent offences such as drug-related crimes. This strengthens the argument that, far from promoting justice, the death penalty is frequently a tool of injustice.

Conclusion

The central question is simple: Is death penalty really a solution to crime? If it were a true solution, we would expect that the existence of capital punishment would drastically reduce heinous crimes. Yet, in India and other countries that retain it, serious offences have not disappeared. In fact, many crimes that are classified as "rarest of rare" continue to occur despite the threat of the gallows.

On the other hand, the death penalty:

• Conflicts with the spirit of Article 21 of the Constitution;
• Violates international human rights principles of dignity and the right to life;
• Is applied in an arbitrary and inconsistent manner under the vague "rarest of rare" test;
• Ignores the possibility of reform and the reality of wrongful convictions;
• Places India on the wrong side of a clear global trend towards abolition.

Therefore, in my view, the death penalty is not a solution to any crime. Instead of making society safer, it creates the risk of irreparable injustice and undermines our commitment to human dignity. As more and more nations abolish capital punishment and as Indian courts grow increasingly cautious about imposing it, the time has come for India also to take the final step and abolish the death penalty completely.