THE CONTEXT: On January 20, 2025, a Kolkata court sentenced Sanjay Roy to life imprisonment for the rape and murder of a 31-year-old doctor at RG Kar Medical College, ruling the crime did not meet the “rarest of rare” threshold. In contrast, the Neyyattinkara court in Kerala awarded the death penalty to Greeshma for poisoning her partner, Sharon Raj, in a premeditated act, reigniting debates on the inconsistent application of India’s ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine.
RECENT CASES HIGHLIGHTING JUDICIAL DISCRETION:
| Case |
Incident |
Verdict |
Judicial Reasoning/Public Reaction |
| R.G. Kar Medical College Case (Kolkata) |
On August 9, 2024, a second-year female postgraduate trainee doctor was raped and murdered inside a seminar room at Kolkata’s R.G. Kar Medical College and Hospital. Sanjay Roy, a civic volunteer, was arrested based on forensic evidence. |
On January 20, 2025, the Additional District and Sessions Judge sentenced Roy to life imprisonment with a fine, stating that the crime did not qualify as ‘rarest of rare.’ |
Public outrage followed the verdict, with many questioning why such a brutal crime did not warrant capital punishment. |
| Sharon Murder Case (Kerala) |
On October 14, 2022, Greeshma poisoned her partner, Sharon Raj, by mixing poison into an Ayurvedic concoction. Sharon succumbed to multiple organ failures after prolonged suffering. |
On January 20, 2025, the Neyyattinkara Additional Sessions Court sentenced Greeshma to death, terming the act “extremely brutal” and classifying it as one of the ‘rarest of rare’ cases. |
The court emphasized factors such as premeditation, cruelty, and societal impact to justify the death penalty. |
DOCTRINE OF ‘RAREST OF RARE’: The Doctrine of ‘Rarest of Rare’ is a judicial principle in India that governs the imposition of the death penalty, ensuring it is applied only in exceptional cases where no other punishment is deemed sufficient. It was established in the landmark case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) and further elaborated in Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983).
KEY ORIGIN:
| CASE |
CONTEXT |
VERDICT |
SIGNIFICANCE |
| Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P. (1972) |
The petitioner argued that the death penalty violated Articles 14 (equality), 19 (freedom), and 21 (right to life). |
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty under Article 21, stating it does not violate fundamental rights if applied after due process. |
Highlighted the need for judicial discretion in awarding the death penalty but lacked clear guidelines for its application. |
| Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) |
Questioned whether the death penalty was constitutional under Articles 14 and 21. |
Introduced the “rarest of rare” doctrine, restricting the death penalty to extraordinary cases where alternative punishments are “unquestionably foreclosed.” |
Established principles for individualized sentencing by considering aggravating and mitigating circumstances, emphasizing fairness and proportionality in sentencing. |
| Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) |
Addressed the criteria for applying the “rarest of rare” doctrine in specific cases. |
Provided a framework with five criteria: manner of commission, motive, social impact, magnitude, and victim’s vulnerability. |
Added clarity to the doctrine but left room for judicial discretion, ensuring a balance between aggravating and mitigating circumstances. |
KEY CASES
| CASE |
CONTEXT |
VERDICT |
SIGNIFICANCE |
| Mithu v. State of Punjab (1983) |
Challenged the constitutionality of Section 303 IPC, which mandated the death penalty for life convicts committing murder. |
The Supreme Court struck down Section 303 IPC, declaring it unconstitutional under Articles 14 (equality) and 21 (right to life). |
Reinforced judicial discretion in sentencing by ruling that mandatory death penalties violate fundamental rights. Highlighted the importance of individualized sentencing. |
| Santosh Kumar Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra (2009) |
Addressed the arbitrariness in imposing the death penalty and emphasized the need for case-by-case evaluation. |
The Court stressed that capital punishment should only be imposed after considering the potential for rehabilitation and mitigating circumstances. |
Strengthened the principle of proportionality in sentencing and emphasized rehabilitation as a key factor before imposing the death penalty. |
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2022–2024)
| DEVELOPMENT |
DETAILS |
SIGNIFICANCE |
| Constitution Bench Referral (September 2022) |
The Supreme Court referred to a Constitution Bench the issue of ensuring fair hearings on mitigating factors at trial stages in capital cases. |
Aimed at standardizing sentencing procedures to ensure fairness and consistency in applying the “rarest of rare” doctrine. |
| Reforms in Sentencing Norms (November 2024) |
Reports suggested reforms to criminal sentencing norms, focusing on uniformity in identifying “rarest of rare” cases and incorporating rehabilitation-focused approaches. |
Highlighted the growing recognition of inconsistencies in death penalty sentencing and the need for systemic reforms to address gaps in judicial discretion and procedural fairness. |
| Manoj & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022) |
The Supreme Court emphasized rigorous compliance with its guidelines on considering mitigating factors, ensuring a fair and meaningful opportunity for convicts facing capital punishment. |
Reinforced procedural safeguards to prevent arbitrary imposition of the death penalty, aligning with global human rights standards while retaining capital punishment for exceptional cases. |
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
-
- Judicial Discretion vs Mandatory Sentencing: The abolition of mandatory death penalties (Mithu v. State of Punjab) underscores the need for individualized sentencing. Mandatory provisions undermine principles of natural justice by denying courts the opportunity to consider mitigating factors.
- Rehabilitation as a Key Factor: The emphasis on rehabilitation (Santosh Kumar Bariyar case) aligns with Article 21’s guarantee of life and personal liberty. Justice Krishna Iyer advocated for “reformative justice,” stating that punishment should aim at reintegrating offenders into society rather than retribution.
- Global Context: Over 120 countries have abolished the death penalty either in law or practice, citing its ineffectiveness as a deterrent. The Law Commission’s 262nd Report (2015) recommended abolishing capital punishment except for terrorism-related offenses, reflecting global trends toward humanistic justice systems.
- Need for Procedural Uniformity: The Supreme Court’s call for a uniform approach to sentencing highlights inconsistencies at trial court levels. Data from Project 39A (2023) revealed that over 70% of death row inmates belong to marginalized communities, raising concerns about systemic biases.
THE WAY FORWARD:
-
- Codification of Sentencing Guidelines: Enact clear legislative guidelines to define “rarest of rare” cases under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) or through amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The UK abolished the death penalty after codifying life imprisonment as the maximum punishment for heinous crimes.
- Judicial Training and Capacity Building: Conduct specialized training programs for judges on balancing aggravating and mitigating factors during sentencing. Germany mandates judicial training on human rights and proportionality in sentencing.
- Rehabilitation-Oriented Policies: Strengthen mechanisms to assess an offender’s potential for reform before imposing capital punishment. The principle of reformation is central to Article 21 (Right to Life) and was emphasized in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980). Studies by Project 39A (2023) reveal that many death row inmates come from marginalized communities with limited access to legal aid or rehabilitation programs. Scandinavian countries prioritize restorative justice over retributive justice, focusing on offender reintegration into society.
- Public Awareness Campaigns: Launch campaigns to educate citizens about the principles governing capital punishment and alternatives like life imprisonment without parole. Public opinion often influences judicial decisions (Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal, 1994), but it may not align with constitutional safeguards or evidence-based policies. Awareness can reduce societal pressure for retributive justice and promote victim-centric approaches.
- Periodic Review Mechanisms: Establish independent review boards to periodically assess death sentences for compliance with evolving jurisprudence and mitigating circumstances. Ensures fairness and prevents wrongful executions, as highlighted in Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014), where delays in mercy petitions were deemed unconstitutional. Japan conducts periodic reviews before executions.
- Exploring Alternatives to Capital Punishment: Introduce life imprisonment without parole as a viable alternative to the death penalty for heinous crimes. Capital punishment has not proven to be a deterrent; NCRB data shows no significant decline in heinous crimes despite its retention. Over 120 countries have abolished the death penalty entirely or limited its scope to exceptional cases like war crimes. As of December 2023, India had 561 prisoners on death row—the highest in two decades (Project 39A Report). Many cases involve procedural lapses or inadequate consideration of mitigating factors.
THE CONCLUSION:
The criminal justice system must prioritize fairness, consistency, and rehabilitation by codifying clear sentencing guidelines and fostering judicial accountability, ensuring the death penalty is reserved only for the gravest crimes while aligning with constitutional morality and global human rights standards. Empowering systemic reforms will uphold justice and reaffirm India’s commitment to equity, dignity, and the sanctity of life.
UPSC PAST YEAR QUESTION:
Q. Instances of President’s delay in commuting death sentences has come under public debate as denial of justice. Should there be a time limit specified for the President to accept/reject such petitions? Analyse. 2017
MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION:
Q. The ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine, while aimed at restricting the use of capital punishment, has been criticized for its inconsistent application and lack of clarity. Analyze
SOURCE:
Spread the Word
