Horror of Crime Not Enough for Death Penalty: Supreme Court’s Emphasis on Fair Process and Constitutional Safeguards

August 27, 2025

The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling, has reiterated that the gravity of a crime alone is insufficient to impose the death penalty unless the judicial process leading to the sentencing is scrupulously fair, transparent, and in strict compliance with constitutional safeguards.

This judgment, delivered in the case involving death row convict Vasant Sampat Dupare, is a reminder of India’s strong constitutional framework that upholds life, dignity, and justice, even for those convicted of heinous crimes.

The Fragility of the Death Penalty System

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta emphasized the irreversible nature of capital punishment and the risk of wrongful convictions. The judgment pointed out that investigations in India often rely on confessions extracted under opacity, contested recoveries, and forensic material of doubtful rigor, which when coupled with an overburdened trial system, increases the risk of errors.

“A Constitution that proclaims liberty and dignity as its first commitments cannot permit the State to end a human life unless every safeguard of fairness has been honoured,” the court observed.

The court further underlined that execution must only follow a process that is “open, thorough, and fair,” demanding that the judicial system pause and reassess whether procedural justice meets the high bar required for capital punishment.

Relevance of Article 21: The Right to Life and Dignity

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states:

“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”

Over the years, judicial interpretation has expanded Article 21 to include:

Right to dignity, even for convicts.
Right to fair trial and access to legal remedies.
Right against arbitrary deprivation of liberty or life.

Justice Sanjay Karol emphasized that dignity is inherent and cannot be stripped even from death row prisoners. The ruling reinforces that procedural safeguards under Article 21 must be strictly followed, particularly in matters of life and death.

Role of Article 32: “The Jewel in the Crown” of Remedies

Article 32 empowers citizens to approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of their fundamental rights. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar famously called it the “heart and soul of the Constitution.”

In this judgment, the Supreme Court clarified that a writ petition under Article 32 can be used to reopen the sentencing stage of a death penalty case, but not to re-argue the conviction itself. This allows courts to examine whether mitigating factors like psychological evaluations and prospects of reform were overlooked.

Justice Karol described Article 32 as the “jewel on the crown,” ensuring access to justice even for those serving the harshest sentences.

Landmark Judgments Relevant to Death Penalty Safeguards

1. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980)

In this landmark case, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty, but laid down the principle that it should be awarded only in the “rarest of rare” cases.
The judgment stressed that the death penalty should not be imposed arbitrarily and that courts must consider mitigating circumstances before awarding capital punishment.

2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)

This case expanded the interpretation of Article 21, holding that “procedure established by law” must be just, fair, and reasonable.
The judgment set the foundation for procedural fairness, linking Articles 14, 19, and 21 to ensure protection against arbitrary state action.
It established that right to life encompasses dignity, fairness, and justice, which applies even to prisoners.

The Court’s Observations: Beyond Retribution

The Supreme Court also questioned the deterrent value of capital punishment, observing that empirical data has not established that executions are more effective in preventing homicide than life imprisonment.

It highlighted that death sentences “close every door,” eliminating hope for reform, reconciliation, or rectification of wrongful convictions, which may come to light only after years.

Significance of the Judgment

This ruling sets a progressive precedent, reaffirming India’s commitment to constitutional morality. Key takeaways include:

Revisiting Death Penalty Sentencing: Article 32 petitions can be used to reexamine the sentencing phase, ensuring all procedural safeguards are upheld.
Reinforcement of Article 21: Life and dignity are inviolable rights, extending even to death row convicts.
A Call for Systemic Reforms: The court acknowledged structural flaws in investigation, prosecution, and sentencing, urging stricter judicial scrutiny.

Conclusion: A Constitution-Centric Approach to Capital Punishment

This judgment signifies a shift in judicial philosophy—from treating the death penalty as a tool of retribution to a last-resort punishment with rigorous constitutional safeguards. It emphasizes that a fair trial is not merely a procedural formality but a constitutional mandate.

By strengthening the safeguards of Articles 21 and 32, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that justice in a democracy is measured not only by punishing the guilty but also by protecting constitutional rights, even for those condemned to death.