India’s death-row dilemma: Growing numbers, delayed justice, and shift to life imprisonment

The increasing numbers result from delayed trials and low rate of disposals by the appellate courts. Over the past five years, the number of death row prisoners have risen persistently, from 378 in 2019 to 490 in 2021 and 564 in 2024. A disturbing trend reported is the average time taken in a death sentence attaining finality. Once a sentence of death is awarded by the trial court, the High Court must confirm the same. If confirmed, the accused may approach the Supreme Court in appeal. Only when this entire process is complete, that a death sentence can be executed. However, this process is extremely slow. For instance, confirmation proceedings in the High Court take an average of 27 months to conclude; appeals or related proceedings in the Supreme Court in appeal take 108 months; and the post mercy proceedings at the High Court or Supreme Court take at least 216 months. In some cases, the delays are even more extreme, with the longest duration recorded at 196 months, 209 months and 243 months respectively.

The psychological and emotional toll of these delays on prisoners, victims and their families can be profound. The uncertainty of punishment looming upon the prisoner and his/her family – the stress, the daily struggles – changes lives in more ways than one can imagine. For the victim, families and the community, each passing day is faith lost in the justice system.

How many death sentences are actually confirmed? Trends indicate that nearly all the cases that are awarded a death sentence at the trial court, are commuted by the Supreme Court. Between 2016 to 2024, the number of death sentences imposed by the Sessions Courts has fluctuated between 110 and 165 (with only 78 sentences imposed in 2020 due to the pandemic). However, the number of confirmations by the High Courts have gone down considerably, with only single figure confirmations since 2020. In 2024, the High Court confirmed nine sentences, commuted 79, acquitted 49 and remanded one case back to the trial court. At the Supreme Court however, confirmations are even lesser – in 2024, for instance there were no confirmations, five commutations and one acquittal.

While the number of prisoners who actually have their death sentences confirmed by the Supreme Court are fairly low, the treatment of a death-row prisoner commences from the moment the trial court awards the sentence. While the treatment varies across states, given that the Indian Constitution empowers the state to frame rules and policies in relation to prisons; the Model Prison Manual 2016 lays down specific procedures to be followed in the case of prisoners sentenced to death. These include provisions for conducting search, confinement in special yards, restrictions on issue of articles on admission, permissions for interviews and access to religious books, newspapers, books etc.

Given the inordinate time taken, one ponders whether prisoners sentenced to death by the trial court should be treated as death-row prisoners, or the prison rules should only apply once the sentence has achieved finality? There is limited research which documents the impact of inmates being confined as death row prisoners, but the focus of prison rules on frequent observations regarding their mental status says it all. Certainly, there should be a more justiciable way of adjudicating death-row cases, which is time bound and takes into account the circumstances of the accused in a more scientific and humane manner.

The Project 39A report reveals another disturbing trend – the increasing imposition of life imprisonment without the possibility of release through remission sentences when commuting death sentences. Such sentences, still not codified by the new criminal laws, are increasingly being relied on by the High Court and the Supreme Court as alternatives to the death penalty. In 2024, 61.14 per cent of all commutations resulted in such sentences.

These sentences have been criticised globally as inhumane and degrading, and have been held in contravention of the right to social rehabilitation for prisoners. Such sentences are also criticised for their expression of “disbelief” in a person’s ability to reform, and are also termed as a harsher punishment as compared to a death sentence. Despite these concerns, the Supreme Court has not yet thoroughly deliberated on the ethical and legal ramifications of such sentences.

The rising number of death row prisoners; the impact of prolonged incarceration on death-row prisoners and the use of life imprisonment without remission as an alternative to death sentences, warrant attention by both the legislature and the judiciary. A more just, efficient and informed approach to adjudicating death penalty cases is imperative to uphold the principles of justice and affirm the faith of the people in the justice system.

The writer is a lawyer and expert on prison reforms and legal aid