Rarest Of Rare Doctrine: Judicial Discretion, Death Penalty and the Quest for Consistency

The Rarest of Rare Doctrine is a judicial principal that regulates the when death penalty or Capital punishment should be imposed. In a criminal cases, it is based on two essential dements. The nature of the Crime and the gravity of the Crime Based on these elements, the impose of the punishment can be decided. It is government Sanctioned practice, the where the state is killed a person as a punishment for a crime. So, The Sentence that someone be punished in this manner said to be as a death sentence.this punishment imposed on capital crimes include offences or crimes such as murder, Attempt to murder, terrorism, treason, espionage, offense against the state like privacy, drug trafficking War crimes, attempt to overthrow government, crimes against genocide.

WHAT IS DOCTRINE OF “RAREST OF RARE” ?

The Doctrine of ‘Rarest of Rare’ is a judicial principle in India that governs the imposition of the capital punishment or death penalty, which  ensures that it is applied only in exceptional cases where no other punishment is deemed to be fit. It was explained in the landmark case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) and further elaborated in Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983)[1].

CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF “RAREST OF RARE DOCTRINE”

 That capital punishment faces ongoing opposition worldwide because it goes against human dignity, the right to equality and right to life, etc. They criticised that government should not have the power to take  person life, no matter of the crime committed.

In India first serious crime challenge to its capital punishment validity in jagmohan Singh Vs state of Uttar Pradesh case. In this case, they raised concerns that violates key constitutional provisions such as article 14 (right to equal), article 19 (freedom of speech and expression) and article 21 (right to life and personal). However, the Supreme Court held that capital punishment was legally valid was an acceptable for punishment in certain cases and does not violate the constitution. The honble court ruled in T.V Vatheeswaran Vs state of Tamil Nadu that, if the person sentenced to capital punishment undergoes prolong delay for execution, this sentence can be changed to life imprisonment. Because, the reason behind this decision was that prolonged Vagueness and anxiety could amounts to cruelty, which makes execution is unfair[2].

JUDICIAL DISCRETION IN DEATH PENALTY

In India, judges have the authority to choose between the death penalty and life imprisonment when sentencing someone for serious crimes. This is different from many other countries where the death penalty is either mandatory for certain crimes or completely banned. Indian judges make this decision based on legal principles like the “rarest of rare” doctrine, introduced in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980). However, even with such guidelines, there’s still a substantial judicial discretion, which can lead to inconsistent outcomes across similar cases[3].

This discretion can be influenced by factors beyond the law such as media attention, public outrage, or political pressure. For example, in the 2012 Nirbhaya case, where a young woman was brutally gang raped and later died, the Supreme Court confirmed the death penalty for the accused. The Court states that the crime was deeply shocked society and hurt its moral values. While some regard believe  that giving the death penalty in such cases is a way to deliver justice and punish the wrongdoer this is called retribution. Others, however, believed the decision was influenced more by public anger and media pressure than by legal judgement.

To address these concerns, the Supreme Court has tried to limit arbitrary decisions. In Santosh Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra (2009), the Court highlighted the need for rationality in sentencing. In Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014), it ruled that long delays in carrying out executions could justify reducing a death sentence to life imprisonment.

Despite these efforts, the issue of inconsistency remains unresolved. The Law Commission of India, in 2015, recommended abolishing the death penalty for ordinary crimes, arguing that it’s impossible to ensure fairness in how such sentences are handed down. Some suggest that judges should follow strict legal rules without personal interpretation, while others believe case by case judgment is necessary.

QUEST FOR CONSISTENCY

The “rarest of rare” doctrine in India, while intended to make the death penalty an exceptional punishment, has been continuously scrutinised for its inherent quest for consistency. This quest arises from the subjective nature of its application, leading to concerns about arbitrary sentencing.

Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980), This is the cornerstone case that introduced the “rarest of rare” doctrine. The Supreme Court, while upholding the constitutional validity of the death penalty (Section 302 of the IPC and Section 354(3) of the CrPC), highlighting that it should only be awarded in the “rarest of rare” cases where the alternative of life imprisonment is “unquestionably foreclosed.”

The Court laid down a framework requiring a balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. This meant that judges had to meticulously weigh factors that would warrant the death penalty against those that would argue for a lesser sentence. The central idea was to ensure that the death penalty was not the rule, but an exception. The normal sentence for murder is life imprisonment, and the death penalty is an exception to be applied only when there are “special reasons.”

Following Bachan Singh, the Supreme Court in Machhi Singh attempted to provide more concrete guidelines for identifying “rarest of rare” cases. A three judge bench laid down five broad categories of cases where the death penalty could be considered:

Mode of Execution of Murder – When the Murder is Committed in an extremely brutal or terribly heartless.

Intention for the Commission of Murder – The murder is Committed with a intention which shows Complete Cruelty and inhuman offence.

Effect on Society – Murders that affected Society Intensity as a whole and Caused public tension.

 Intensity of the Crime – when the crime is extremely serious and impact society at large.

personality of Victim of murder – when victim is a minor child, a woman or old aged person.

Quest for Consistency and Criticisms:

Despite the guidelines, the application of the “rarest of rare” doctrine has continued to face criticism regarding its consistency:

Subjectivity and Judicial Discretion: The main issue is that court decisions are too personal. The way courts decide punishments is often too inconsistent because it depends on individual judges personal opinions and how they interpret a case, rather than a clear, uniform standard. This means similar crimes might get different sentences just because different judges are adjudicating.

Lack of Uniform Sentencing Policy: India lacks a comprehensive sentencing policy, which further exacerbates the problem of inconsistency in death penalty cases.

Focus on Crime vs. Criminal: While some regard the focus shifts too much to the heinous crime itself rather than criminal. They might overlook whether that person could ever change for the better or be rehabilitated. The basic legal rule was meant to make judges think about both the “bad act” and the “bad person’s potential to become good,” so they should consider both.

Manoj Pratap Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2022): In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court commuted the death sentence awarded to an accused convicted of the rape and murder of a minor. The Court reiterated that the death penalty must be reserved for the “rarest of rare” cases and emphasized the importance of adequate consideration of mitigating circumstances, including the possibility of reform and rehabilitation. This case again brought to the fore the continuing debate about how to ensure consistency in the application of the doctrine, particularly in gruesome cases involving sexual offenses against children[4].

Efforts Towards Greater Consistency:

 Courts have increasingly highlighted the need for a separate, “real, meaningful, and effective” hearing on the question of sentence, allowing for proper consideration of aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

There’s a growing recognition of the need to analyse into the socio-economic background of the offender, their mental state, and the possibility of their reformation and rehabilitation, rather than only focusing on the brutality of the crime.

The Law Commission of India, in its 262nd Report (2015), recommended the abolition of the death penalty for all crimes other than terrorism-related offenses and waging war, citing concerns about its arbitrary and inconsistent application.

CONCLUSION

The Doctrine of ‘Rarest of Rare’ in India is a judicial principle guiding the imposition of the death penalty, intended for only the most exceptional cases where no other punishment is suitable.

However, the doctrine faces persistent criticism due to its subjective application by judges, leading to inconsistencies in sentencing.

Remember that, before sentencing capital punishment, should consider both crime and criminals. Such efforts are being made to promote greater consistency through highlighting through sentencing hearings and considering offenders’ backgrounds.

[1] https://www.ylfkashmir.com/Projects/law-journal/critical-analysis-of-the-doctrine-rarest-of-the-rare

[2] https://lawbhoomi.com/constitutional-validity-of-death-penalty-or-capital-punishment-in-india/ (26 December 2024)

[3] https://lawfullegal.in/bachan-singh-the-death-penalty-the-evolution-of-the-rarest-of-rare-doctrine/ (29 December 2024)

[4] https://www.casemine.com/commentary/in/affirmation-of-‘rarest-of-rare’-doctrine:-death-sentence-upheld-in-manoj-pratap-singh-v.-state-of-rajasthan/view( june 25 2022)