Should India abolish the death penalty? Evaluate in light of constitutional jurisprudence, the Law Commission's recommendations and international trends.

India keeps capital punishment. Since Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980), however, life imprisonment has been the rule and death the "rarest of rare" exception [1]. Whether India should abolish it depends on whether these safeguards actually deliver fair, consistent outcomes.

Constitutional jurisprudence

• For retention: a Constitution Bench upheld the death penalty under Article 21. It relied on "valuable safeguards" such as High Court confirmation of every death sentence [1].
• The Court has kept tightening the process. Mithu (1983) struck down the mandatory death sentence. Manoj (2022) required mental-health evaluations and jail-conduct reports before sentencing [2]. Dupare (2025) allowed Article 32 petitions to reopen sentences passed without these safeguards [2].
• For abolition: Justice Bhagwati's dissent warned of "arbitrariness and freakishness" in death sentencing [1]. The Court itself admits that a "retributive response to the brutality of the crime" shows up in most appeals [2]. Its benches also disagree on whether a convict can be sentenced on the same day as conviction, a question now before a five-judge bench [1].
• In Dupare, the legal-aid lawyer was absent at the sentencing hearing, and the convict's brain injury came to light only in 2022 [2]. This shows how errors can go unnoticed, and a death sentence cannot be undone.

Law Commission's recommendations

• The 35th Report (1967) favoured retention. The 262nd Report (2015) recommended abolition for all crimes except terrorism and waging war [3].
• Manoj acknowledged the 262nd Report's concern that death sentencing was inconsistent and inadequate [2].

International trends

• UN General Assembly Resolution 77/222 (2022), which calls for a moratorium on executions, passed by 125 votes to 37, with 22 abstentions [4].
• However, General Assembly resolutions are non-binding [4]. Fifty-four countries, including India and the USA, still keep the death penalty in law [2].

Evaluation

• The Supreme Court notes that research "has yet to establish" that the death penalty deters murder better than life imprisonment [2].
• Its own admissions show that Bachan Singh's promise of consistency remains unmet. Removing it overnight, though, would ignore public concern about terror crimes.
• A phased path is therefore more defensible than either immediate abolition or the status quo:
• limit the death penalty to the Law Commission's terror and waging-war exceptions;
• write Manoj's process into law;
• fund legal aid and mitigation investigation;
• set time limits for deciding mercy petitions (Shatrughan Chauhan, 2014).

Constitutional jurisprudence, the Law Commission and global practice all point towards extreme restraint. India should restrict the death penalty step by step, aiming to abolish it outside terror offences. This would honour Article 21's commitment to the dignity of life and SDG 16's goal of just, accountable institutions.