• Associate Sponsor

A civilised and progressive jurisprudence calls for banning the death penalty

An aspect that requires discussion is the meaning of “rarest of rare” that is used to identify the category of offenders who may be sentenced to death.

Written by Kunal Ambasta | Updated: May 16, 2017 12:27 pm
Supreme Court, Vasant Sampat Dupare, death sentence, delhi gangrape, nirbhaya verdict, nirbhaya gangrape, gangrape death sentence, capital punishment, death penalty, SC, SC death penalty, indian express news, india news, opinion The Supreme Court routinely rejects a vast majority of the special leave petitions furnished before it each week, and remands a large number of criminal cases for consideration. (File Photo)

Over the last few days, the Supreme Court has confirmed death sentences twice, and in close succession. On May 3, the Court rejected the review petition of Vasant Sampat Dupare, convicted and sentenced to death for the rape and murder of a small child. The second, and more infamous case, relates to the death penalties for the convicts in the December 16 Delhi gang-rape case.

In both these cases, the Supreme Court did not consider it fit to remand the cases to the original sentencing court, despite agreeing that the trial court had erred by not considering aggravating and mitigating circumstances. This becomes important where the penalty sought to be imposed is that of death, which stands qualitatively and legally on a completely different footing from any other punishment. This deprives the convict of his procedural right of confirmation and appeal of the sentence.

Indeed, the Supreme Court routinely rejects a vast majority of the special leave petitions furnished before it each week, and remands a large number of criminal cases for consideration. Why was it that such a direction was not considered fit in these cases, even when the Court itself agreed that the sentencing carried out by the trial court was legally deficient? So much so that it considered mitigation evidence afresh, and reached the conclusion of death. The Supreme Court, in not referring the cases back to the trial court for sentencing, has, in fact, exercised jurisdiction which is properly with the lower courts.

Not only does the procedure adopted by the Court curtail the due process rights of the convicts under Article 21, but it also raises the question of whether the Court itself has created a differential criteria for the treatment of petitioners before it. These cases are similar in terms of the crimes committed. They are offences for which there is substantial demand for visible, retributive punishment of the offenders. Would it be possible then that the judiciary may be under pressure to impose extraordinary punishment in such cases, which could possibly run counter to procedural and Fundamental Rights?

Another aspect that requires discussion is the meaning of “rarest of rare” that is used to identify the category of offenders who may be sentenced to death. In the case of Bariyar, the Supreme Court had shown that its determination of rarest of rare was providing irreconcilable results, with similar cases falling in and out of the category. The Bariyar judgment may also be used to show that the determination of which cases merit death are influenced by the individual predilections of judges. The only safeguard that could possibly remedy this would be to look for the consistent award of death right from the trial court upwards, before concluding that a case merits capital punishment.

If one agrees with this aspect of Bariyar’s reasoning, then the present cases become unsatisfactory on another ground. If the trial court had, as the Supreme Court seems to agree, not done a proper analysis of whether these cases were rarest of rare instances, then the question of consistency in sentencing vapourises. In essence, there is no legally tenable sentence at the level of the trial court at all. Therefore, a determination of whether or not these cases fall within the rarest of rare category cannot be done, unless the matter is remanded to the court which first sentenced them.

If these two cases are considered to be representative, it leads us to consider the possibility of legal and Fundamental Rights being not honoured for heinous offences accompanied by public outrage. The true test of whether any legal rights exist in the first place is how strictly we follow them in cases that test us the most. Whether we put anything by the rights to life and liberty must be seen in situations when those rights are under the most pressure and the temptation to ignore them is the highest. Any other understanding is chimerical to the entire notion of having rights.

The above also raises questions as to whether the death penalty has a place in our legal system, if inconsistencies in its application are being witnessed. In particular, if one sees that the very limited scope of rarest of rare is itself not capable of being applied in a manner which would provide predictability and equality, there can be no guarantee as to the proper exercise of the punishment. Therefore, the problem with retaining the death penalty will continue to exist even when its scope is limited. The only tenable option that remains would be that of abolition.

It is only by abolishing the death penalty in toto that we would be able to give full meaning to our commitment to a civilised and progressive jurisprudence in line with international trends.

(This article first appeared in the print edition under the headline ‘Two verdicts, one message’)

The writer is assistant professor, National Law School of India University, Bangalore

For all the latest Opinion News, download Indian Express App

More From Kunal Ambasta
  • Encounter vs rule of law

    Whichever way you look at it, the Bhopal ‘encounter’ was outside the criminal justice system...

  • Supreme Court has shone much-needed light on the dark underbelly of the operation of AFSPA

    The recent order of the Supreme Court on the applicability of the Armed Forces’ Special Powers Act (AFSPA) and the immunity it confers to the…

  • Discharge of the Malegaon accused is a reminder of a recurring injustice

    The fact that the court chose to discharge the accused 10 years after the crime, speaks volumes about the prosecution evidence in the present case..

    1. N
      Neeraj
      May 17, 2017 at 7:51 am
      It is so easy to act civilized & give free advice & lectures on freedom,liberty & justice... Just imagine if it were not nirbhaya but someone from your family.. Would you be able to hold your facade of civilized person then?? Those bloody monsters raped, tortured & destro lives then shove the body aside like some dirty used napkin.. Imgine someone from your family is that napkin... Is your civilized facade still intact?? Don't think just some heavy English words will get you anywhere.. Also try live alone from now on Too much librarian thoughts might make take untoward action targeted on someone close to you... If your are offended Then good
      (0)(0)
      Reply
      1. S
        SK Mehta
        May 17, 2017 at 2:21 am
        Dear kunalbai, After reading thousands of words written by you (do you get paid by the words you write?) I still did not see any logical reason behind your reasoning for abolishing death penalty. You may try to shame some people by using large words "civilized", "progressive", etc. but that does not justify your statement. Do you want those roaches who raped and killed Nirbhaya to be part of this society? Do you want those pigs who kill innocent children in the name religion to spread their religion while on life imprisonment? God save the humans from bleeding heart liberals (like you) who find reasons to oppose every action by the authority. I sincerely hope you and/or your family do not face those situations where culprits are given death sentence. May god bless your misguided soul!
        (1)(0)
        Reply
        1. Seshubabu Kilambi
          May 16, 2017 at 7:49 pm
          Death penalty leads to judgements of double standards: some may be awarded death while others may be let of for the same crime. Hence abolition is a must
          (0)(1)
          Reply
          1. P
            P d amarnath
            May 16, 2017 at 7:11 pm
            There is a school of thought in law which strongly believes in abolition of death penalty, saying it is barbarian and inhuman. Still they don't think of the victims and their suffering. The inhuman and devilish crimes done by the convicted certainly deserves capital punishment and that too as soon as court confirms the punishment and without avoidable political delay of presidential pardon and such deliberate delaying tactics for political gains. When crime is committed against humanity, punishment should be be ing.
            (0)(0)
            Reply
            1. Employ Ment
              May 16, 2017 at 7:05 pm
              💲💲मुफ्त रोजगार योजना💲💲 ✔मोदी जी द्वारा चलाए गए डिजिटल इन्डिया से जुड़े और कमाए हर महीने 15,000 - 50,000 रुपए ✔अब कोई नही रहेगा बेरोज़गार और नही करेगा कोई बेरोज़गार आत्महत्या ✔क्योंकि अब आ गई है 21वीं सदी की सबसे बड़ी रोज़गार क्रांति ✔हमारा सपना पूरे भारत को ही नही पूरी दुनिया को डिजिटल इंडिया से जोड़ना 💲सबका साथ सबका विकास💲 ➡शुरुवात कैसे करे ✔C.h.a.m.p`C.a.s.h को प्ले स्टोर से इन्स्टल करे, और साइन अप करे, $1 डॉलर बोनस स्पौन्सर ID: 468942 ➡चैलेंज को पूरा करे ➡और इंकम करनी शुरू करे 👇🏻इसे जरूर नोट कर ले👇🏻 स्पौन्सर ID: 468942 ........................ Ygsggdinxix
              (0)(0)
              Reply
              1. Load More Comments