RIGHTFULLY OURS

Introduction: The Case that Reignited the Debate

The application of the death penalty has been contested in India for a long time. As a result, courts have tried to balance justice with the development of human rights standards. The current issue being highlighted here is the case of RG KAR Medical College in Kolkata.

In this case, a postgraduate doctor was raped and murdered in the seminar room during her 36-hour shift on August 8, 2024. Her father filed a complaint under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which introduces stricter provisions for crimes against women and children under Chapter V.

Following this, the Calcutta High Court transferred the case to the CBI and on January 20, civic volunteer Sanjay Roy was found guilty based on forensic evidence. The court ruled that the crime did not qualify as being the rarest of rare and sentenced him to life imprisonment with a fine. This decision has reignited debate on the death penalty’s applicability and evolving criminal justice framework, particularly under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and its implications for judicial decision-making in violent crimes against women. Thus, the following piece aims to highlight the legal development around the rarest of rare doctrines, as well as look at internal jurisprudence surrounding the death penalty as a punishment.

Understanding the ‘Rarest of Rare’ Doctrine

The death penalty remains a contentious issue, with courts navigating its necessary and moral implications. The primary aim of the rarest of the rare doctrine is to prevent arbitrary capital punishment and impose it only when life imprisonment is inadequate.

This debate on judicial discretion dates back to  Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P. (1972), where the Supreme Court upheld capital punishment’s constitutionality, ruling that trials consider all relevant factors. It was Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) that introduced the rarest of the rare doctrine, restricting the death penalty to exceptional cases without defining clear criteria. Later, the Supreme Court in Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) outlined five key factors: brutality, depraved motive, social impact, scale of crime, and victim vulnerability to determine the applicability of the death penalty.

Furthermore, Santosh Kumar Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra (2009) emphasized balancing aggravating circumstances (i.e., those circumstances that could make a violation or offense more such as legal or disciplinary actions, in criminal trials or situations involving academic misconduct) and mitigating circumstances (i.e., circumstances that reduce the severity of a crime, such as the defendant’s age, mental state, criminal history of the offender, etc.). Similarly, in Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka (2008), the Court warned against the imposition of capital punishment unless absolutely essential.

The current case of RG Kar Hospital highlights the doctrine’s continued relevance, as courts must balance the death penalty with judicial caution in addressing violent crimes against women under evolving legal standards.

Legal Evolution of the Rarest of Rare Doctrine in India: Key Judicial Precedents

Following the establishment of this doctrine, several cases have shaped its evolution. In Mithu v. State of Punjab (1983), the Supreme Court abolished Section 303 of the IPC, which made the death penalty mandatory for life-term convicts committing murder, holding it unconstitutional under Articles 14 and 21 which guarantee the Right to Equality and the Right to Life and Personal Liberty, respectively.

At the same time, the landmark case of Mukesh v. State of NCT Delhi (Nirbhaya Case) (2017) reaffirmed the rarest of rare doctrine, with the Court sentencing four convicts to death while the juvenile accused received a three-year correctional term. The Court cited the “brutality and disregard for human dignity” as justification for capital punishment. Conversely, in Ramnaresh v. State of Chhattisgarh (2012), life imprisonment was granted for gang rape and murder, considering the young age of the convicts and potential for reform.

In Bhagwan Das v. State (2011), the Court ruled that honour killings fall under the rarest of rare categories, justifying the death penalty. However, inconsistencies emerged when earlier, in State of Maharashtra v. Damu (2003), the murder of three children as a human sacrifice led to life imprisonment, as the case was outside the purview of ‘rarest of rare’. Meanwhile, previously in Sushil Murmu v. State of Jharkhand (2000), the Court imposed the death penalty for a similar act, emphasising the brutality and lack of reformation potential.

These contradictions show judicial inconsistencies in applying the rarest of rare doctrine, highlighting concerns about discretion and uniformity of courts. The RG Kar Medical College case underscores the need for judicial clarity in applying this doctrine, as a uniform approach will not only uphold victims’ rights and societal deterrence but also ensure that the doctrine serves its intended purpose when no alternatives are available.

Global Abolition Trends and Retentionist Countries: An International Perspective on Death Penalty

Global Abolition Trends

Over the past decade, the movement to abolish the death penalty has gained momentum, with many countries banning it due to human rights concerns, judicial errors, and lack of deterrence. International agreements, such as the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, reflect a global commitment to ending executions. Article 1(2) of the ICCPR states that “Each State Party shall take all necessary measures to abolish the death penalty within its jurisdiction.” Organisations like the United Nations and Amnesty International continue advocating for abolition, emphasising the fundamental right to life.

Currently, 71% of nations have abolished the death penalty either in law or practice. European nations, most of Latin America, and parts of Africa have eliminated it entirely. Even some retentionist countries, such as Singapore and Malaysia, have reduced its use, favoring alternative sentencing methods to prevent irreversible miscarriages of justice.

Retentionist Countries

Despite global progress, nearly two-thirds of the world’s population still live in countries where capital punishment is enforced. Nations such as China, India, the U.S., and Japan continue executions, though at different rates. Countries like China and Pakistan sill retain the death penalty within their punitive legal frameworks.

India remains a retentionist country, applying the death penalty in the rarest of rare cases. However, its stance conflicts with global treaties like the ICCPR’s Second Optional Protocol, which calls for its abolition. While India acknowledges international law, it justifies capital punishment for heinous crimes, sparking ongoing debates.

Conclusion

The RG Kar case reignites the ongoing debate between the imposition of capital punishment and evolving human rights considerations. While courts continue to impose the death penalty in the rarest of rare cases, the absence of a uniform framework leads to inconsistencies in sentencing. At the same time, case-by-case assessment allows for individualised justice, preventing rigid application of the doctrine. Striking a balance between retributive justice and reformation remains a challenge, and moving forward, India must work towards a more structured yet flexible legal approach, ensuring that capital punishment is applied only in the most exceptional cases, while maintaining certainty, fairness, and respect for human rights.