Death Penalty in India and the ‘Rarest of Rare’ Doctrine: A Critical Study of Judicial Trends

Abstract

The death penalty remains one of the most controversial forms of punishment in the Indian criminal justice system because it involves an irreversible deprivation of life while simultaneously raising questions of deterrence, retribution, proportionality, judicial discretion and constitutional protection. Indian law has not completely abolished capital punishment but has progressively restricted its application through statutory safeguards and judicial interpretation. The most significant development was the formulation of the “rarest of rare” doctrine by the Supreme Court in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980), under which death punishment is intended to be exceptional and life imprisonment the normal rule. Subsequent decisions, particularly Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983), Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra (2009), Sangeet v. State of Haryana (2013) and Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra (2013), demonstrate continuing attempts to define and refine the doctrine. This paper critically analyses the evolution of capital sentencing jurisprudence in India up to 2015, focusing on judicial discretion, aggravating and mitigating circumstances, proportionality, reformation and consistency in sentencing. It also examines the recommendations of the Law Commission of India in its 262nd Report (2015). The analysis demonstrates that although the “rarest of rare” doctrine seeks to limit capital punishment, its application has generated concerns about consistency and predictability. The paper concludes by identifying the need for a more structured and individualized sentencing framework capable of protecting constitutional values while ensuring fairness in the administration of criminal justice.