LIJDLR

death penalty in India

A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT WITHOUT REMISSION AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE DEATH PENALTY IN INDIA

A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT WITHOUT REMISSION AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE DEATH PENALTY IN INDIA Mohammad Fazal, 10th Semester, B.A.LL.B Student at Amity Law School, Amity University, Uttar Pradesh Dr. Rohit Kumar Shukla, Assistant Professor (Grade- III) at Amity Law School, Amity University, Uttar Pradesh Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2024.v03.23 This research critically examines the constitutionality, judicial evolution, and human rights implications of life imprisonment without remission as an alternative to the death penalty in India. The study explores how Indian courts, particularly through landmark judgments like Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka and Union of India v. V. Sriharan, have crafted this sentencing option to bridge the stark binary between capital punishment and standard life imprisonment with remission. It analyses how such judicial innovations seek to balance retribution, deterrence, and reformative justice while grappling with constitutional safeguards under Articles 14, 21, 72, and 161. The research highlights the ethical, psychological, and legal challenges posed by irreducible life sentences, particularly in the absence of review mechanisms and a codified sentencing framework. Through a comparative lens, the paper references international human rights standards including the Vinter judgment of the European Court of Human Rights and the UN’s Nelson Mandela Rules to assess the compatibility of India’s practices with global norms. Emphasis is placed on proportionality, dignity, and separation of powers in sentencing jurisprudence. The paper concludes with robust policy suggestions for introducing statutory review procedures, reform-oriented prison policies, and judicial training to harmonize Indian penology with constitutional and human rights principles. It argues that while life without remission offers a humane alternative to the death penalty in principle, its long-term use must be cautiously structured and periodically revisited to avoid becoming a silent and indefinite form of punishment. Type Information Research Paper LawFoyer International Journal of Doctrinal Legal Research, Volume III, Issue I, Page 514-543. Creative Commons Copyright This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. © Authors, 2024

A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT WITHOUT REMISSION AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE DEATH PENALTY IN INDIA Read More »

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

EVALUATING THE RELEVANCE OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS IN INDIA Kaifi Khan, 10th Semester, B.A.LL.B Student at Amity Law School Lucknow, Amity University Uttar Pradesh Abhishek Mishra, Assistant Professor at Amity Law School Lucknow, Amity University Uttar Pradesh Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2024.v03.19 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. Type Information Research Paper LawFoyer International Journal of Doctrinal Legal Research, Volume III, Issue I, Page 418-444. Creative Commons Copyright This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. © Authors, 2024

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