This post has been self-published on Youth Ki Awaaz by Simran Bhinder. Just like them, anyone can publish on Youth Ki Awaaz.

Is It Time To Do Away With Death Penalty In India?

More from Simran Bhinder

By Simran Bhinder:

Source: Flickr.

In 1967, the Law Commission of India had reported: “Having regard, however, to the conditions in India, to the variety of social upbringing of its inhabitants, to the disparity in the level of morality and education in the country, to the vastness of its area, to the diversity of its population and to the paramount need for maintaining law and order in the country at the present juncture, India cannot risk the experiment of abolition of capital punishment.” However, due to the recent support in favour of abolishing this punishment from the Indian legal system and the trend being observed in most of the countries around the world, the Law Commission of India in 2013 decided to review the issue once again.

This issue, however, is not a new one. One of the most controversial and heatedly debated topics during the Constituent Assembly debates was whether or not the death penalty should be retained in the constitution of Independent India?

One of the main voices for abolishing the death penalty was the man who is often referred to as the architect of the Constitution – DR. B. R. Ambedkar. Ambedkar pointed out the inherent violence that is attached to a punishment like the death penalty and stated that “people may not follow non-violence in practice but they certainly adhere to the principle of non-violence as a moral mandate and thus the state ought to observe it as far as it possibly can,” implying that a state must practice non-violence if it wants its citizens to condone violence.

However, Ambedkar’s views and suggestions were ignored by the Assembly and the death penalty was retained as a legal form of punishment in the penal code.

Although the death penalty was retained in the legal system it has not been a common form of punishment. In Mithu vs. State of Punjab (1983) the Supreme Court observed that “in the whole of IPC there is only one section (Section 303) where death is described as the only punishment for murder by person under a sentence for imprisonment for life; and even this lone section has been struck down by the supreme court as it was found violative of the constitutional provisions.”

There are other sections which describe offences for which the death penalty exists as an alternative along with other punishments. Under the Indian Penal Code, crimes that are punishable with a death sentence include treason, abetment of mutiny, perjury resulting in the conviction and death of an innocent person, murder, kidnapping for ransom and dacoity with murder. Following the Nirbhaya case, Parliament changed the law to make a second charge of rape punishable with the death penalty.

The legal policy framers ensured that the death penalty was not awarded in a frivolous manner. Section 354 (3) makes it mandatory for the judges to state the reason for choosing to give this particular punishment when alternatives are available. In Ambaram vs. State of MP, it was clarified that only a special reason, i.e., special facts or circumstances present will warrant the passing of a death sentence. This was also reflected in Dhananjoy Chatterjee vs. State of West Bengal (1994) in which the courts observed that “the measure of punishment in a given case must depend on the atrocity of the crime, the conduct of the criminal and the defenceless and unprotected state of the victim,” thus, ensuring that the courts look at a number of factors before deciding to award this punishment.

Apart from all these legal provisions stated in the various codes governing criminal law, even the Supreme Court has tried to further limit the number of cases in which the death penalty is given by coming up with the ‘rarest of the rare cases’ doctrine. Cases like Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab (1980) make it very clear that even though the death penalty stated is an alternative option for punishment, in many cases, the only situation in which it can be awarded is when it fits into the criteria set by the ‘rarest of the rare’ doctrine. The mere fact that the court finds the person guilty of committing a particular crime cannot be a reason to justify the sentencing of capital punishment.

All this was done keeping in mind the gravity and irrevocable nature of this sentence and to ensure that it is given only in cases in which such extreme and grave loss is suffered that it can justify a punishment this harsh.

Apart from all these there is also an option with the person being sentenced to death to file for a petition of mercy. Thus any person who believes that his or her crime wasn’t as grave as to attract the maximum punishment can appeal to the Supreme Court (after the death penalty has been confirmed by the High Court) and if the petition is rejected by the Supreme Court of India, a plea for clemency can be sent to the President as well. Section 363 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, protects this right to appeal by making it mandatory for the court to formally inform the accused about his right to appeal against the sentence and the time period within which such an appeal can be made. This ensures that a decision as grave as deciding whether or not the State should take away a person’s life is not decided just be one court but can be reviewed by other authorities as well.

According to government statistics, only 54 persons have been executed since Independence. An average of 132 death sentences were handed down each year from 2001 to 2011 by trial courts across the country, according to a National Crime Records Bureau report. The Supreme Court during the same period, however, confirmed only three to four death sentences each year. These numbers reflect the reluctance of Supreme Court in imposing capital punishment.

Even though the Indian criminal justice system tries to ensure that the death penalty is not awarded unreasonably or without a proper justification, many legal experts claim that mistakes while awarding this sentence are not uncommon. This claim became more popular when in 2012 14 eminent judges (retired) who had served in various high courts and the Supreme Court wrote a letter to the President stating that since 1996 nearly 15 erroneous death sentences had been awarded, out of which two had already been carried out.

Another very common response to the pro-death sentence argument – that it serves as a deterrent against people committing similar crimes – is that the certainty of punishment and not the severity deters crimes in society. This argument was furthered strengthened when in 2012 a study conducted in the United States found that there is no credible evidence that the death penalty has any deterrent effect on crime.

With the recent global trend towards abolishing the capital punishment gaining more and more support each day, with the European Union having made “abolition of death penalty” a prerequisite for membership, and the Amnesty International recently reporting that 140 countries, more than two-thirds of the world, do not use the death penalty any more.

In fact, today India has become one of the few countries in which death sentences continue to be awarded after it expressly refused to sign the moratorium on executions, prepared by the 65th United Nations General Assembly, in favour of abolishing the death penalty.

However, the idea of prohibiting this ‘maximum punishment’ is becoming popular within the country at a very significant pace. And the support for this is coming from all quarters of society, including from the judiciary itself. The recent observation by the Supreme Court, “perhaps the Law Commission of India can resolve the issue by examining whether death penalty is a deterrent punishment or is retributive justice or serves an incapitative goal,” reflects the conflict within the judicial systems also.

You must be to comment.

More from Simran Bhinder

Similar Posts

By Anuj Dahiya

By শঙ্কু_ পাগলা

By Anjali joseph

Wondering what to write about?

Here are some topics to get you started

Share your details to download the report.

We promise not to spam or send irrelevant information.

Share your details to download the report.

We promise not to spam or send irrelevant information.

An ambassador and trained facilitator under Eco Femme (a social enterprise working towards menstrual health in south India), Sanjina is also an active member of the MHM Collective- India and Menstrual Health Alliance- India. She has conducted Menstrual Health sessions in multiple government schools adopted by Rotary District 3240 as part of their WinS project in rural Bengal. She has also delivered training of trainers on SRHR, gender, sexuality and Menstruation for Tomorrow’s Foundation, Vikramshila Education Resource Society, Nirdhan trust and Micro Finance, Tollygunj Women In Need, Paint It Red in Kolkata.

Now as an MH Fellow with YKA, she’s expanding her impressive scope of work further by launching a campaign to facilitate the process of ensuring better menstrual health and SRH services for women residing in correctional homes in West Bengal. The campaign will entail an independent study to take stalk of the present conditions of MHM in correctional homes across the state and use its findings to build public support and political will to take the necessary action.

Saurabh has been associated with YKA as a user and has consistently been writing on the issue MHM and its intersectionality with other issues in the society. Now as an MHM Fellow with YKA, he’s launched the Right to Period campaign, which aims to ensure proper execution of MHM guidelines in Delhi’s schools.

The long-term aim of the campaign is to develop an open culture where menstruation is not treated as a taboo. The campaign also seeks to hold the schools accountable for their responsibilities as an important component in the implementation of MHM policies by making adequate sanitation infrastructure and knowledge of MHM available in school premises.

Read more about his campaign.

Harshita is a psychologist and works to support people with mental health issues, particularly adolescents who are survivors of violence. Associated with the Azadi Foundation in UP, Harshita became an MHM Fellow with YKA, with the aim of promoting better menstrual health.

Her campaign #MeriMarzi aims to promote menstrual health and wellness, hygiene and facilities for female sex workers in UP. She says, “Knowledge about natural body processes is a very basic human right. And for individuals whose occupation is providing sexual services, it becomes even more important.”

Meri Marzi aims to ensure sensitised, non-discriminatory health workers for the needs of female sex workers in the Suraksha Clinics under the UPSACS (Uttar Pradesh State AIDS Control Society) program by creating more dialogues and garnering public support for the cause of sex workers’ menstrual rights. The campaign will also ensure interventions with sex workers to clear misconceptions around overall hygiene management to ensure that results flow both ways.

Read more about her campaign.

MH Fellow Sabna comes with significant experience working with a range of development issues. A co-founder of Project Sakhi Saheli, which aims to combat period poverty and break menstrual taboos, Sabna has, in the past, worked on the issue of menstruation in urban slums of Delhi with women and adolescent girls. She and her team also released MenstraBook, with menstrastories and organised Menstra Tlk in the Delhi School of Social Work to create more conversations on menstruation.

With YKA MHM Fellow Vineet, Sabna launched Menstratalk, a campaign that aims to put an end to period poverty and smash menstrual taboos in society. As a start, the campaign aims to begin conversations on menstrual health with five hundred adolescents and youth in Delhi through offline platforms, and through this community mobilise support to create Period Friendly Institutions out of educational institutes in the city.

Read more about her campaign. 

A student from Delhi School of Social work, Vineet is a part of Project Sakhi Saheli, an initiative by the students of Delhi school of Social Work to create awareness on Menstrual Health and combat Period Poverty. Along with MHM Action Fellow Sabna, Vineet launched Menstratalk, a campaign that aims to put an end to period poverty and smash menstrual taboos in society.

As a start, the campaign aims to begin conversations on menstrual health with five hundred adolescents and youth in Delhi through offline platforms, and through this community mobilise support to create Period Friendly Institutions out of educational institutes in the city.

Find out more about the campaign here.

A native of Bhagalpur district – Bihar, Shalini Jha believes in equal rights for all genders and wants to work for a gender-equal and just society. In the past she’s had a year-long association as a community leader with Haiyya: Organise for Action’s Health Over Stigma campaign. She’s pursuing a Master’s in Literature with Ambedkar University, Delhi and as an MHM Fellow with YKA, recently launched ‘Project अल्हड़ (Alharh)’.

She says, “Bihar is ranked the lowest in India’s SDG Index 2019 for India. Hygienic and comfortable menstruation is a basic human right and sustainable development cannot be ensured if menstruators are deprived of their basic rights.” Project अल्हड़ (Alharh) aims to create a robust sensitised community in Bhagalpur to collectively spread awareness, break the taboo, debunk myths and initiate fearless conversations around menstruation. The campaign aims to reach at least 6000 adolescent girls from government and private schools in Baghalpur district in 2020.

Read more about the campaign here.

A psychologist and co-founder of a mental health NGO called Customize Cognition, Ritika forayed into the space of menstrual health and hygiene, sexual and reproductive healthcare and rights and gender equality as an MHM Fellow with YKA. She says, “The experience of working on MHM/SRHR and gender equality has been an enriching and eye-opening experience. I have learned what’s beneath the surface of the issue, be it awareness, lack of resources or disregard for trans men, who also menstruate.”

The Transmen-ses campaign aims to tackle the issue of silence and disregard for trans men’s menstruation needs, by mobilising gender sensitive health professionals and gender neutral restrooms in Lucknow.

Read more about the campaign here.

A Computer Science engineer by education, Nitisha started her career in the corporate sector, before realising she wanted to work in the development and social justice space. Since then, she has worked with Teach For India and Care India and is from the founding batch of Indian School of Development Management (ISDM), a one of its kind organisation creating leaders for the development sector through its experiential learning post graduate program.

As a Youth Ki Awaaz Menstrual Health Fellow, Nitisha has started Let’s Talk Period, a campaign to mobilise young people to switch to sustainable period products. She says, “80 lakh women in Delhi use non-biodegradable sanitary products, generate 3000 tonnes of menstrual waste, that takes 500-800 years to decompose; which in turn contributes to the health issues of all menstruators, increased burden of waste management on the city and harmful living environment for all citizens.

Let’s Talk Period aims to change this by

Find out more about her campaign here.

Share your details to download the report.

We promise not to spam or send irrelevant information.

A former Assistant Secretary with the Ministry of Women and Child Development in West Bengal for three months, Lakshmi Bhavya has been championing the cause of menstrual hygiene in her district. By associating herself with the Lalana Campaign, a holistic menstrual hygiene awareness campaign which is conducted by the Anahat NGO, Lakshmi has been slowly breaking taboos when it comes to periods and menstrual hygiene.

A Gender Rights Activist working with the tribal and marginalized communities in india, Srilekha is a PhD scholar working on understanding body and sexuality among tribal girls, to fill the gaps in research around indigenous women and their stories. Srilekha has worked extensively at the grassroots level with community based organisations, through several advocacy initiatives around Gender, Mental Health, Menstrual Hygiene and Sexual and Reproductive Health Rights (SRHR) for the indigenous in Jharkhand, over the last 6 years.

Srilekha has also contributed to sustainable livelihood projects and legal aid programs for survivors of sex trafficking. She has been conducting research based programs on maternal health, mental health, gender based violence, sex and sexuality. Her interest lies in conducting workshops for young people on life skills, feminism, gender and sexuality, trauma, resilience and interpersonal relationships.

A Guwahati-based college student pursuing her Masters in Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Bidisha started the #BleedwithDignity campaign on the technology platform, demanding that the Government of Assam install
biodegradable sanitary pad vending machines in all government schools across the state. Her petition on has already gathered support from over 90000 people and continues to grow.

Bidisha was selected in’s flagship program ‘She Creates Change’ having run successful online advocacy
campaigns, which were widely recognised. Through the #BleedwithDignity campaign; she organised and celebrated World Menstrual Hygiene Day, 2019 in Guwahati, Assam by hosting a wall mural by collaborating with local organisations. The initiative was widely covered by national and local media, and the mural was later inaugurated by the event’s chief guest Commissioner of Guwahati Municipal Corporation (GMC) Debeswar Malakar, IAS.

Sign up for the Youth Ki Awaaz Prime Ministerial Brief below