EVALUATING THE RELEVANCE OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS IN INDIA

This research paper critically evaluates the relevance of capital punishment in India by examining constitutional provisions, statutory frameworks, judicial precedents, and international perspectives. It analyses the evolution of the “rarest of rare” doctrine and explores the judicial inconsistencies in death sentencing. The paper highlights how procedural safeguards under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita aim to restrict arbitrary imposition of the death penalty. It examines arguments both supporting and opposing capital punishment, drawing attention to the disproportionate impact on the poor and marginalised, the psychological trauma of prolonged death row incarceration, and the global trend towards abolition. The study underscores the shift in judicial thinking from retributive to reformative justice, favouring life imprisonment without remission as a constitutionally sustainable alternative. Drawing from comparative jurisprudence and human rights standards, the research concludes that capital punishment, while legally permitted, is increasingly seen as morally and pragmatically redundant. It proposes reforms aimed at structured sentencing, better legal aid, and a reconsideration of the death penalty’s place within a democratic and rights-based legal framework committed to dignity and justice.