Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab

Facts

Bachan Singh, convicted of murder and sentenced to death, challenged the constitutionality of the death penalty under section 302 IPC and the sentencing discretion under section 354(3) CrPC, contending they violated Articles 14, 19 and 21 as developed after Maneka Gandhi.

Issues

• Is the death penalty for murder under section 302 IPC constitutionally valid after Maneka Gandhi expanded Article 21?
• Is the sentencing discretion to choose death over life imprisonment arbitrary and unconstitutional?

Arguments

Bachan Singh argued the death penalty was an unreasonable, cruel deprivation of life inconsistent with the post-Maneka 'fair, just and reasonable' standard and conferred arbitrary sentencing power. The State argued the Constitution itself contemplates the death penalty (Articles 72, 134, 21) and that judicial discretion, properly guided, is not arbitrary.

Held

Applying Article 21 to a substantive penal provision (a substantive due process exercise), the majority held the death penalty for murder is neither per se nor by its mode of execution an unreasonable, cruel or unusual punishment. To cabin arbitrary imposition, it devised the 'rarest of rare' doctrine: death may be imposed only when the alternative of life imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed, after weighing aggravating and mitigating circumstances relating to both crime and criminal. Bhagwati J dissented, holding the death penalty arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21, and clarifying that Article 21's fair-just-reasonable test applies to substantive as well as procedural law.

Ratio decidendi

Capital punishment is constitutional but may be imposed only in the rarest of rare cases where life imprisonment is unquestionably inadequate, after individualised balancing of aggravating and mitigating factors.

Significance

The governing precedent on the death penalty in India and a key instance of substantive due process — testing a substantive criminal law against Article 21. The 'rarest of rare' framework remains the touchstone, though the book notes the Court's later inconsistency (Ravji, corrected in Santosh Bariyar and Sangeet).

Related