5 min readSep 22, 2026 12:53 PM IST
First published on: Sep 22, 2026 at 12:52 PM IST
As a society and a legal system, we have chosen to retain the death penalty. The least courts can do in exposing an accused to the “spectre” of death is to ensure that such suffering is not inflicted in blatant disregard for the law. The Supreme Court has repeatedly insisted that the decision to impose it cannot be based only on the brutality of the crime and that a certain procedure has to be followed. Yet, the recent instance of a trial judge in Uttar Pradesh sentencing 23 people to death over approximately five months raises a fundamental concern about whether the law laid down by the Supreme Court is being followed.
A close reading of the nine judgments in which the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar (ADJ Muzaffarnagar) imposed these 23 death sentences reveals a deeply troubling picture. The judgments repeatedly cite substantially the same set of Supreme Court precedents, in much the same sequence and often with the same excerpts. Yet when it comes to the crucial question of whether the death penalty is warranted, the reasoning appears to rest overwhelmingly on the nature and circumstances of the crime. Further, it is evident that the procedure prescribed by the apex court has been completely ignored.
In Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980), a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court held that sentencing in a capital case requires consideration of both the nature of the crime and the circumstances of the accused. The Supreme Court was clear that judges cannot justify the imposition of the death penalty only by characterising the offence as exceptionally brutal or shocking. The court must undertake an individualised assessment of the person before it and determine whether the alternative of life imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed. This principle has been reiterated by the Supreme Court across decades. A trial court judge is not at liberty to replace a binding legal standard with his own philosophy of punishment.
The problem becomes even more stark when viewed against what the Supreme Court specifically mandated in Manoj v. State of MP (May 2022). The Court recognised that meaningful consideration of mitigating circumstances cannot be reduced to the court asking an accused, at the sentencing hearing, whether there is anything they wish to say. Instead, the court must have relevant material before it. Manoj contemplated reports from the probation officer and prison authorities, as well as psychological and psychiatric assessments, along with a mitigation report from the defence. It required these reports so that the circumstances bearing on the accused’s socio-economic and historical background, conduct, mental condition and possibility of reform could be properly evaluated. This was not an optional checklist. It was an attempt to give practical meaning to the constitutional requirement of individualised sentencing.
The Supreme Court went further in Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. Union of India, decided in August 2025. It held that sentencing an accused to death without following the safeguards mandated in Manoj would be in violation of their fundamental rights. Against this clear mandate, the complete absence of any meaningful Manoj-compliant exercise in the 23 death sentences is astounding.
Data collated by The Square Circle Clinic at NALSAR University of Law points to a much larger systemic failure. Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Manoj in May 2022, we analysed 216 cases in which trial courts across India imposed death sentences between 2023 and 2025. Only eight of those 216 cases (less than 4 per cent) complied with the legal requirements laid down by the Supreme Court. This data should raise grave concerns. Trial judges cannot select the precedents they find persuasive and disregard the requirements they find inconvenient. Judicial independence cannot and does not mean judicial freedom from the law.
It is highly unlikely that any of these 23 death sentences will be upheld by the appellate courts. However, it is a process that can take years. Eventually, a high court or the Supreme Court will follow Manoj and come to a conclusion that these death sentences are not legally valid. The safeguards developed in Manoj and Dupare are meant to ensure judges follow a certain process that is non-negotiable. Death sentences are not about questions of courage or cowardice but of judicial discipline and following the law. It is about adhering to constitutional commitments despite the temptation not to do so. That’s what judicial courage looks like.
The writer is professor of law and executive director, The Square Circle Clinic at NALSAR University of Law. The Clinic provides pro bono legal representation to persons sentenced to death. Views expressed are personal
It is highly unlikely that any of these 23 death sentences will be upheld by the appellate courts. However, it is a process that can take years. 
Share
