History of Capital Punishment in India

Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is one of the most contentious and debated forms of punishment. Its history in India stretches back thousands of years, evolving with the nation’s various cultures, legal systems, and philosophical beliefs. While capital punishment was once a common and widely accepted method of punishing offenders for heinous crimes, its application and justification have shifted dramatically over the years. 

In modern India, the death penalty remains legal but is applied only in the “rarest of rare” cases, a standard established by the Indian judiciary to limit its usage. This article explores the origins, evolution, and present state of capital punishment in India.

Ancient India and the Concept of Punishment

In ancient India, the concept of punishment was closely linked to maintaining social order and justice. Early references to capital punishment can be found in ancient Hindu scriptures like the Dharmaśāstras and the Arthashastra, which prescribed the capital punishment for certain crimes, such as murder and treason. 

In Manusmriti, one of the earliest law texts, capital punishment was deemed necessary for maintaining social harmony. Manu, the author of the text, argued that severe punishments, including death, were essential for deterring individuals from committing grievous crimes.

The justification for the death penalty in ancient India was based on the belief that punishment was a form of retribution and a necessary tool to protect society from those who threatened it. Moreover, it was thought to serve as a deterrent, discouraging others from engaging in criminal behaviour. The principle of Dand Niti (justice through punishment) was central to the legal philosophy of the time.

Capital Punishment under Hindu Law

Hindu law during ancient and medieval periods retained a system of punishments that included death for specific crimes. The law emphasised retributive justice, wherein the severity of the punishment matched the gravity of the crime. According to the Arthashastra, written by Kautilya (also known as Chanakya), the chief adviser to Emperor Chandragupta Maurya, the death penalty was reserved for the gravest offences, such as espionage, murder, and high treason. The Arthashastra also provided that the ruler had the authority to execute wrongdoers in order to preserve the integrity and security of the state.

During this period, there were also philosophical considerations for the application of capital punishment. The law allowed for the possibility of mitigating circumstances, such as the criminal’s repentance or the potential for reform. Although Hindu law allowed capital punishment, it was not viewed solely as an act of revenge, but also as a means of correcting society.

Capital Punishment under Islamic Law

The introduction of Islamic rule in India during the medieval period saw a shift in the legal framework, with Sharia law being introduced into the Indian legal system. Sharia law, which is derived from the Quran and Hadith, included provisions for capital punishment, particularly for crimes considered Hadd (serious offences with fixed punishments prescribed in the Quran) and Qisas (crimes requiring retribution, often through “an eye for an eye” principle).

Under Islamic law, capital punishment was reserved for specific crimes, such as murder, theft, apostasy, and rebellion. The Mughal Empire, which ruled much of India from the 16th to the 19th century, followed these principles. However, the application of the death penalty varied significantly depending on the ruler’s approach to justice. Mughal emperors like Akbar were known for their relatively lenient use of capital punishment, often preferring imprisonment or exile over execution. In contrast, rulers like Aurangzeb were more inclined to enforce strict punishments in line with Sharia law.

British Colonial Period

The British colonisation of India brought significant changes to the legal system, including the introduction of English common law. The Indian Penal Code (IPC), enacted in 1860 under British rule, became the cornerstone of India’s criminal justice system and remains largely in force today. The IPC provided for the death penalty for a range of offences, including murder, waging war against the state, and treason.

During the British era, capital punishment was widely used as a tool to suppress dissent and control the population. Many freedom fighters, including notable figures like Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, and Sukhdev, were executed by the British for their involvement in the Indian independence movement. These executions fueled widespread resentment and protests against colonial rule, further solidifying the association between the death penalty and political oppression.

The most famous instance of capital punishment during British rule was the execution of the revolutionary Bhagat Singh and his associates in 1931, an event that became a turning point in India’s struggle for independence. Their execution ignited public outcry and further galvanised the Indian independence movement.

Post-Independence Era

Following India’s independence in 1947, the newly established Republic of India inherited the colonial legal system, including the IPC, which continued to prescribe the death penalty for certain offences. The Indian Constitution, which came into effect in 1950, guarantees the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. However, the framers of the Constitution did not abolish the death penalty outright, leaving it to be regulated by the judiciary.

In the years following independence, there were several legal challenges to the constitutionality of the death penalty. In Jagmohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1973), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of capital punishment, ruling that it did not violate Article 21. The Court reasoned that the death penalty could be imposed only after following the due process of law, ensuring that the convict’s right to life was not arbitrarily taken away.

The landmark case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) further defined the scope of capital punishment in India. In this case, the Supreme Court established the “rarest of rare” doctrine, which restricted the application of the death penalty to only the most egregious cases. The Court held that life imprisonment was the rule, and the death penalty was the exception, to be used only when the crime was so heinous that life imprisonment would be inadequate.

The Bachan Singh ruling significantly reduced the frequency of death sentences in India, as courts were required to consider the mitigating circumstances of each case before imposing the death penalty. Over time, this doctrine became the guiding principle for determining whether a convict should be sentenced to death.

Crimes Punishable by Death in Modern India

The Indian Penal Code still provides for the death penalty in specific cases, including:

1. Murder (Section 302) – The most common offence for which the death penalty is imposed.
2. Terrorism-related offences – Crimes involving waging war against the government (Section 121), and terrorist acts under special laws such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
3. Rape leading to death – As per the amendments to the IPC after the 2013 Delhi gang rape case, repeat offenders or those whose sexual crimes result in death can face the death penalty.
4. Kidnapping and ransom – Section 364A imposes the death penalty in cases of kidnapping for ransom where harm or death occurs.
5. Drug trafficking – Under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS), the death penalty can be imposed for repeat offenders involved in large-scale drug trafficking.

Apart from these, there are other statutes like the Army Act, 1950, and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, which also prescribe the death penalty for specific offences.

Procedural Safeguards and Clemency Powers

India’s legal system has instituted several safeguards to ensure that the death penalty is not imposed arbitrarily. Under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), a death sentence imposed by a lower court must be confirmed by the High Court. If the High Court confirms the sentence, the convict has the right to appeal to the Supreme Court. Additionally, the President of India and state Governors have clemency powers under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution, respectively. They can commute death sentences to life imprisonment, grant pardons, or stay executions.

One of the most important cases related to clemency powers is Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014), where the Supreme Court held that prolonged delays in deciding mercy petitions could be a valid ground for commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment. This ruling underscored the importance of humane treatment for death row prisoners.

Recent Trends and Cases on Capital Punishment

In recent years, there have been several high-profile cases involving the death penalty in India. The execution of Yakub Memon in 2015 for his role in the 1993 Mumbai bombings reignited the debate over capital punishment. The Nirbhaya gang rape and murder case, which resulted in the execution of four convicts in 2020, was another pivotal moment, with public opinion overwhelmingly in favour of the death penalty for the perpetrators of such heinous crimes.

Despite these instances, the actual number of executions in India has remained relatively low. According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), between 2000 and 2020, only around eight executions were carried out. Most death sentences handed down by lower courts are either commuted to life imprisonment by higher courts or overturned on appeal.

The Debate Over Abolition of Capital Punishment

India remains one of the few democracies that retain the death penalty, but there is an ongoing debate about its relevance and effectiveness. Advocates of abolition argue that the death penalty is inhumane and violates the fundamental right to life. They also point to the risk of wrongful convictions and the lack of evidence that the death penalty serves as an effective deterrent to crime.

On the other hand, supporters of the death penalty argue that it is a necessary tool for dealing with the most heinous crimes, especially in cases involving terrorism, rape, and murder. They believe that certain crimes are so egregious that only the death penalty can provide justice to the victims and their families.

Conclusion

The history of capital punishment in India reflects the nation’s evolving legal and philosophical landscape. From its ancient roots in Hindu and Islamic law to its modern-day application, the death penalty has remained a contentious issue. While India has significantly reduced its use of capital punishment, it continues to reserve the death penalty for the rarest of rare cases. 

As debates over human rights and justice continue, the future of the death penalty in India remains uncertain, with calls for its abolition gaining momentum both domestically and internationally. However, as of today, it remains a legal form of punishment in the country, albeit one applied with extreme caution.