E-Paper
Horror of crime not enough for death penalty, says apex court
The Supreme Court asserts that the death penalty requires a fair, transparent process, emphasizing dignity and rights even for convicts on death row.
Warning that the “machinery which feeds the death-penalty system is itself fragile”, the Supreme Court has held that the horror of a crime alone cannot justify sending a convict to the gallows unless the process leading to such punishment is scrupulously fair, transparent and thorough.
“A Constitution that proclaims liberty and dignity as its first commitments cannot permit the State to end a human life unless every safeguard of fairness has been honoured and every civilising impulse of the law has been heard,” said a bench of justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta.
It cautioned that the irreversible nature of the death penalty, when grafted on to an error-prone process, risks violating Article 21’s guarantee of life and liberty.
“We cannot overlook that the machinery which feeds the death-penalty system is itself fragile. Investigations often rely on confessions extracted in opacity, recoveries whose provenance is contested and forensic material of doubtful rigour. When such evidence is filtered through an overburdened trial process, the possibility of wrongful conviction can never be dismissed,” the judgment said.
According to the bench, the majesty of the Indian Constitution lies not in the might of the State but in its restraint. “When the court contemplates the ultimate punishment, i.e. the capital punishment, it enters a domain where justice must be tempered by conscience and guided by the unwavering promises of equality, dignity and fair procedure,” it held.
The court added that the question is never only what penalty a crime might merit; it is first whether the machinery of the republic has honoured every safeguard that makes punishment lawful in a constitutional democracy. “In the narrow space between guilt and the gallows, a robust Constitution demands that we pause, look again, and ask whether the process itself has measured up to the high bar that humanity and the rule of law together set,” it noted.
The court also placed the death penalty within a penal and empirical context. “Empirical literature has yet to establish that the spectacle of an execution deters homicide more effectively than a sentence of incarceration for the natural span of life,” it recorded. The court went on to say that because a death sentence “closes every door,” ending hope of remorse, reconciliation and the uncovering of mistakes that sometimes surface only after many years, a just society must require that the procedural pathway to execution be “beyond reproach. as it must also be open, thorough and fair.”
The court delivered its ruling in a case involving death-row convict Vasant Sampat Dupare, holding that the court has the power to reopen the sentencing stage of a death penalty case through a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, which guarantees the enforcement of fundamental rights. The operative part of the judgment was delivered on Monday while its full text was released on Tuesday.
In its judgment, the court clarified that such petitions cannot be used to re-argue the entire case or conviction, adding that the scope of judicial review under Article 32 extends to examining whether mitigating circumstances, such as psychological evaluations and prospects of reform, were duly considered before affirming a death sentence.
“Reopening will be reserved only for those cases where there is a clear, specific breach of the new procedural safeguards as these breaches are so serious that, if left uncorrected, they would undermine the accused person’s basic rights to life, dignity and fair process,” it underscored.
Justice Karol, in a concurring but separate opinion, reinforced that even those convicted of heinous crimes retain the constitutional right to dignity. “In general perception, the image of convicts on death row is most uncharitable and hostile, and to perceive dignity for them may appear to some as an unjust concession to the most undeserving. The law, however, does not permit such perceptions,” he wrote.
The judge emphasised that Article 21 rights, particularly the right to dignity, do not end with conviction. “So long as a person is living, he is entitled to dignity,” noted Justice Karol, describing Article 32 as the “jewel on the crown” of India’s constitutional remedies, available even to those serving the harshest sentences.
