Life imprisonment is the rule, death the exception. Discuss the procedural safeguards in death penalty sentencing and assess whether they have achieved consistency.

In Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980), a Constitution Bench upheld the death penalty but made life imprisonment the rule. Death is allowed only when the alternative is "unquestionably foreclosed" [1]. Over the next four decades the Court added procedural safeguards on top of this rule, but sentencing outcomes are still not uniform.

Procedural safeguards

• Special reasons: a judgment imposing death must record "special reasons". This was Section 354(3) CrPC and is now Section 393(3) BNSS, 2023 [3].
• Separate sentencing hearing: under Section 235(2) CrPC, which came from the Law Commission's 48th Report (1972), the convict must be heard on sentence [2].
• Crime-and-criminal test: courts must weigh the aggravating circumstances of the crime against the mitigating circumstances of the accused [1].
• High Court confirmation of every death sentence, which Bachan Singh called a "valuable safeguard" [2].
• Manoj v. State of M.P. (2022): at the trial stage, the State must provide a psychiatric evaluation, a social history and a jail-conduct report of the accused [1].
• Reopening a final sentence: in Dupare (2025), the Court used Article 32 to reopen a death sentence passed without the Manoj safeguards [1].

Assessment: consistency achieved?

Gains

• Judges' discretion is now structured, and Manoj moves the focus from the crime alone to the offender [1].
• The Court corrects its own lapses. Dupare applied Manoj to past cases, but only where there was a "clear, specific breach" [1].

Gaps

• Risk flagged at the start: Bhagwati J.'s dissent in Bachan Singh warned of "arbitrariness and freakishness" [2].
• Benches disagree: Allauddin Mian and Dagdu conflict on whether death can be imposed on the day of conviction. In 2022 the Court sent this "clear conflict" to a five-judge bench, which has not yet ruled [2].
• Sentencing driven by brutality: Manoj found "retributive" responses in most cases reaching appeal. The Law Commission's 262nd Report (2015) had already found death sentencing inconsistent [1].
• Unequal defence: in Dupare, an absent legal-aid lawyer meant no real mitigation hearing. The convict's brain injury was found only in 2022 [1].
• Executive delay: the Governor took over four years to decide Dupare's mercy petition [1].

The safeguards have turned a broad doctrine into concrete procedure. Even so, the outcome still depends on how good the defence lawyer is and which line of precedent a court follows. The five-judge bench should settle when the sentencing hearing must take place. Parliament should write Manoj into the BNSS, as Manoj itself urged [1]. States should build forensic-psychiatry and prison capacity. Only then will "life the rule, death the exception" meet Article 21's promise of fair, just and reasonable procedure.