Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980)

Author: Anushka, NMIMS Navi Mumbai

Court: Supreme Court of India, 9 May 1980

Citation-Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 S.C.C. 684 (India)

Judges: Y.V. Chandrachud, Chief Justice of India, Justice P.N. Bhagwati, Justice N.L. Untwalia, Justice R.S. Sarkaria, Justice A.C Gupta.

The case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1980 SC 898) is one of the most significant milestones in the history of Indian law, especially with regard to the constitutional validity and use of capital punishment. This case reaffirmed the legality of capital punishment and also came up with the “rarest of rare” doctrine which evolved exceedingly rigorous criteria for its enforcement.

Factual Background

In one of the previous cases, Singh was found guilty of killing his wife and was sentenced to life imprisonment. After serving his sentence he was released, and he lived with his cousin Hukam Singh. Tension in the household began to build as a result of Bachan Singh living there. One night, in what can only be described as a shocking act, Singh brutally murdered three members of Hukam Singh’s family; wife, son, and daughter in law. The trial court convicted Singh under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced him to death. The High Court also upheld this decision, creating the need for a Supreme Court appeal.

Presented Legal Problems

 The Supreme Court divided the questions into two fundamental issues: 

1.  The Constitutionality of Death Penalty: Whether the execution of the death penalty as stipulated under Section 302 of the IPC breaches the fundamental rights provided in Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution.

2. Sentencing Procedure under Section 354(3) of(CrPC), 1973: Does the requirement for judges to record "special reasons" when awarding the death penalty provide adequate safeguards against arbitrary sentencing?

For the Appellant (Bachan Singh):

Argued Case: A breach of fundamental rights –Claiming conflict of Article 21 as the death penalty infringes on the right to life and personal liberty, Singh ran with the premise of it being a self-evident, thoughtful punishment. And how dehumanizing it truly is also relied heavily on another primordial constitutional mindset.

Leading to arbitrary and defiant sentencing. This was charged under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which defies the shocking denial of death as a power not being limited by any sensible consideration and again not complying with any rule or principle.

For Respondent (State of Punjab):

Proclaiming breaking law: The government argued at every opportunity during the case that death is a requirement when protecting and preserving law and order.

The respondent elaborately pointed out that the provision of Section 354(3) of the CrPC required the judges to uniformly provide ‘special reasons’ of a rational basis and non-arbitrary form of justification.

4:1 decision of a majority the Constitutional legality of the death penalty was upheld by The Supreme Court and gave appropriate reasoning. 

Interpretation of Article 21: The court maintained that “in any case the death penalty is allowed in the IPC and therefore, the Constitution and law is not violated.” The law Article 21 states the life can be taken away to be deprived only “in line with the law of the land”. 

Article 19 of Considerations: Also, the Court noted that respect of freedom provided by Article 19 is relative and can be limited. Freedom granted by due process does not conflict with the execution due as a process. 

Non-Arbitrariness and Article 14: The provision in Section 354(3) of the CrPC requiring judges granting a death sentence to state “special reasons” so termed the sentence as special was also protection against arbitrary sentencing and execution in comparison with the equal provisions of Article 14. 

“Rarest of Rare” Doctrine: The court propagated this doctrine stating the death penalty should be used only and only when the option of imprisoning for life is completely closed. This aids in making sure capital punishment is exercised in the most outrageous and awful life circumstances.

Dissenting Opinion

Justice P. N. Bhagwati’s dissent worried him because the death penalty’s consequences are irreversible and could lead to terrible judicial mistakes. He argued for the abolition of capital punishment, claiming that it is excessively brutal and inhumane; instead, he supported life imprisonment without parole.

The Bachan Singh judgment has profoundly influenced the Indian criminal justice system:

Sentencing Framework: The “rarest of rare” doctrine has been, and is, the basis for capital sentencing in India. It requires the death penalty to only be given in cases of the most horrific nature.

Judicial Scrutiny: Later decisions have defined what the “rarest of rare” cases are, bringing greater uniformity to capital sentencing.

Human Rights Discourse: The case has stimulated further discussion on the morality, efficiency, and rights-based aspects of the death penalty, affecting legal changes and social attitudes.

Analysis

The State's Authority Versus Individual Rights

The Supreme Court's ruling in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab formulated the 'rarest of rare' doctrine to try and strike a balance between the imposition of capital punishment by the state and one’s right to life as provided under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. This particular doctrine makes sure that the death penalty is only issued in the most severe cases in order to avoid the arbitrary and overuse of capital punishment. Still, the court provided room for concern regarding its long term compatibility with emerging human rights standards by not completely abolishing the death penalty which left space for the use of deterrence-based rationales.

 While the doctrine plays an important role in the framework of capital sentences, the absence of objective measures criteria invites disparate judicial interpretations or biases. In Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983), the brutality of the crime along with victim’s helplessness were listed, but later cases (Santosh Kumar Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra (2009), Shankar Kisanrao Khade v. State of Maharashtra (2013)) pointed out the cases’ subjectivity. This variation is problematic for the equity of capital punishment. 

Moral And Ethical Aspects of Law

The existence of extreme penalty under the ‘rarest of the rare’ category is ideologically traditionalist. Justice Bhagwati’s dissenting opinion examined the incompleteness with which the underlying reasons of capital punishment fail to reflect the constitution's objectives as value of human dignity. Here, capital punishment becomes a symbol rather than a practical phenomenon, being potentially useful for politics instead of justice. The distinctive feature and threat remains that the state of affairs is irrevocable, increases risk of misjustice, and no observation has proven the supposing sanity of deterrence.

 Development In Reasoning Of Constitution

The ruling embodies the judgment of India with respect to the changing constitutional interpretation towards Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) which enlarged the interpretation of Article 21. Still, the Court exercised restraint by not completely eliminating the death penalty, which likely stems from social and political reasons. This shows that constitutional adjudication is not only a function of law but also requires consideration of social factors.

 Effects on Death Penalty Jurisprudence

Despite the “rarest of rare” doctrine moderating the imposition of the death penalty, inconsistencies remain. For example, the execution of Afzal Guru in 2013 for “satisfying the collective conscience of society” was an entirely different approach from Bachan Singh and added an element of subjectivity that could easily allow judicial populism or politically motivated decision making as opposed to constitutional adjudication. 

Further Issues on the Discussion of Abolishment

The global tendencies for more than 140 nations doing away with capital punishment shifts the focus onto India to change its position. The Law Commission of India’s 262nd Report in 2015 recommended abolishing capital punishment for ordinary crimes and keeping it only for terrorism. However, a modern democracy must grapple with the possibility of judicial error, manifestation of inconsistency in the application of the doctrine, and lack of evidence to support its deterrent effect.

Personal Reflection: Progressing Advancement Annihilation

Though the decision in Bachan Singh represented a move towards rationalizing capital punishment, it did not settle the wider debate about the constitution and ethics. With its irrevocability, possibility of judicial blunders, and absence of proven deterrence, it is far more logical and humane to abolish the death penalty and replace it with life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Bhagwati’s dissenting opinion remarks that rather than vengeance, justice should be about restoring dignity and providing rehabilitation. This is the moral and constitutional resolve that ought to be pursued in subsequent decisions.

The Bachan Singh case is one of the most important in Indian Judicial history because it maintained a delicate equilibrium between the government's right to exercise capital punishment and the need to observe fundamental human rights. The Supreme Court incorporated the “rarest of rare” doctrine in order to apply the death sentence in a rational manner that is reserved only for the most exceptional cases, thereby reflecting sensitivity towards civilization as well as justice.