Case Summary: Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab

Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: AIR 1980 SC 898, 1982 (3) SCC 24
Judgment Date: May 9, 1980
Bench: Chief Justice Y.V. Chandrachud, Justice A.C. Gupta, Justice N.L. Untwalia, Justice P.N. Bhagwati (dissenting), Justice R.S. Sarkaria
Petitioner: Bachan Singh
Respondent: State of Punjab

Background:

The case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab is one of the most important decisions concerning capital punishment in India. The appellant, Bachan Singh, was convicted of multiple murders and sentenced to death by the trial court. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana confirmed the death sentence. Bachan Singh then appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the constitutionality of the death penalty as well as the correctness of the sentence in his case.

Facts of the Case:

Bachan Singh was sentenced to death for the murder of his wife, two children, and a relative. He had committed these crimes with extreme brutality, which led the trial court to award him the death penalty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The High Court upheld this sentence, after which Bachan Singh appealed to the Supreme Court.

The appellant’s primary contention was that the death penalty violated his fundamental rights, specifically under Article 21 (Right to Life), Article 14 (Right to Equality), and Article 19 (Freedom of Speech, Assembly, and Movement) of the Indian Constitution. He argued that capital punishment as provided in Section 302 IPC was unconstitutional, arbitrary, and violative of the basic principles of human dignity and life.

Issues Raised:

1. Constitutionality of the Death Penalty:
   Is the death penalty for murder under Section 302 of the IPC unconstitutional, particularly with respect to Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty?
2. Scope of Judicial Discretion in Death Penalty Cases:
   Should the judiciary have the discretion to award the death penalty based on individual case circumstances, or is such discretion arbitrary?
3. Application of the Death Penalty:
   Should the death penalty be imposed in the case of Bachan Singh, or would life imprisonment be a more appropriate punishment?
4. “Rarest of Rare” Doctrine:
   What is the appropriate standard for determining when the death penalty should be imposed?

Arguments by the Petitioner:

Bachan Singh’s counsel contended that the death penalty violates the right to life guaranteed under Article 21, as it amounts to a deprivation of life by the state. It was further argued that:

• The discretion vested in the judiciary to award either the death sentence or life imprisonment was arbitrary and led to inconsistent sentencing across similar cases.
• The death penalty also contravened Article 14 (Right to Equality) because it was not applied uniformly and often depended on subjective considerations of the judiciary.
• Furthermore, the death penalty was said to violate Article 19, as it extinguished all fundamental rights and freedoms, particularly the freedom to live.

The petitioner urged the Court to abolish capital punishment, or at the very least, set stringent guidelines to prevent its arbitrary imposition.

Arguments by the Respondent (State of Punjab):

The state argued that the death penalty was not unconstitutional, as it was prescribed by law after due legislative procedure. It was emphasized that Section 302 of the IPC had been part of Indian law since its inception and had survived judicial scrutiny multiple times. The state further argued that:

• The death penalty serves as a deterrent for heinous crimes like murder and is necessary to maintain law and order in society.
• The judiciary had always exercised caution and discretion while awarding the death penalty, ensuring that it was given only in extreme cases where the crime was particularly brutal or involved multiple victims.
• Capital punishment was essential for delivering justice in cases where the nature of the crime was so abhorrent that life imprisonment was an inadequate punishment.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court, by a 4:1 majority, upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty. The Court ruled that capital punishment under Section 302 IPC did not violate the Constitution. However, it significantly restricted its application by introducing the “rarest of rare” doctrine, which has since become a crucial legal standard for death penalty cases in India.

1. Constitutionality of the Death Penalty:
   The Court ruled that the death penalty is constitutionally valid. It stated that the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 can be restricted through “procedure established by law.” Since the death penalty was part of the Indian Penal Code, enacted through legislation and subject to judicial scrutiny, it could not be considered unconstitutional.
2. Rarest of Rare Doctrine:
   The Court emphasized that the death penalty should only be imposed in the “rarest of rare” cases, where the crime is so heinous that life imprisonment would be insufficient. The Court laid down guidelines for determining when a case falls within this category. It stated that the nature of the crime, the circumstances of the offender, and the possibility of reform must all be taken into account. Only when the alternative of life imprisonment is “unquestionably foreclosed” should the death penalty be imposed.
3. Judicial Discretion:
   The Court upheld the judiciary’s discretion to award the death penalty but cautioned that this discretion must be exercised judiciously. It emphasized the importance of balancing mitigating and aggravating circumstances in each case to ensure that the death penalty is not imposed arbitrarily.

Dissenting Opinion by Justice P.N. Bhagwati:

Justice Bhagwati dissented, arguing that the death penalty is inherently unconstitutional. He contended that:

• The death penalty violates Article 21, as it deprives an individual of the most fundamental right— the right to life.
• Capital punishment was often imposed arbitrarily, without consistent standards, leading to inequality in sentencing.
• The possibility of reform should always be considered, and the state should not take away an individual’s life when there is any chance of rehabilitation.

Justice Bhagwati argued that life imprisonment was a more humane and just alternative to the death penalty and called for its abolition.

Impact of the Judgment:

The Bachan Singh judgment marked a turning point in the Indian legal system’s approach to capital punishment. The “rarest of rare” doctrine has since become the guiding principle for awarding the death penalty in India. The Court’s emphasis on judicial discretion and the need for careful balancing of mitigating and aggravating factors has led to a more measured and restrained use of the death penalty.

Despite upholding the death penalty, the judgment reinforced the sanctity of life and introduced safeguards to ensure that the ultimate punishment is only imposed in the most exceptional circumstances. Since this judgment, the death penalty has been imposed in far fewer cases, and courts have been more cautious in their approach to capital punishment.

Conclusion:

The case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab is a landmark decision that struck a delicate balance between the need for justice in cases of heinous crimes and the protection of the right to life. By upholding the constitutionality of the death penalty while restricting its application to the “rarest of rare” cases, the Supreme Court ensured that capital punishment remains an option, but one that is used sparingly and judiciously.

---

For the original judgment, you can view it here.