The 1980 case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab is a landmark in Indian legal history, as it introduced the significant principle of the “rarest of rare” doctrine for the application of the death penalty. This case involved Bachan Singh, who was convicted and sentenced to death for the murders of Desa Singh, Durga Bai, and Veeran Bai. After the Punjab High Court upheld his death sentence, Bachan Singh appealed to the Supreme Court, which allowed his request for Special Leave to hear the case.

Brief fact of the case

In this case, Bachan Singh was accused of killing three people Desa Singh, Durga Bai, and Veeran Bai, and was found guilty and given the death penalty in accordance with Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). His death sentence was upheld by the High Court. Bachan Singh and other inmates filed a special leave appeal with the Supreme Court where he questioned the constitutionality of the death sentence under section 302 of IPC as well as the sentencing procedure described in Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which requires judges to give special justifications for imposing the death penalty. 

Issue Raised

The case deals with a special issue that relates to the constitutionality of the death penalty in India. One major issue to be discussed before the court was whether Bachan Singh’s case satisfied the requirement of “special reasons” for imposing the death penalty, as outlined in Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This section emphasized that the court must provide strong and special reasons when deciding to award the death penalty.

Additionally, the case went beyond procedural concerns and raised important constitutional questions. The court had to consider whether the death penalty conflicted with the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. This brought up the critical issue of how to balance the severity of capital punishment with the fundamental right to life, leading to deeper discussions on whether the death penalty was constitutionally valid.

 In summary, the issues raised before the court were

• Is the death penalty for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) unconstitutional and does it violate Articles 14 (equality before the law), 19 (freedom of speech and expression), and 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution?
• Is the sentencing process in Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 unconstitutional because it gives judges unchecked power and allows for the arbitrary use of the death penalty in cases of murder, where the IPC prescribes either death or life imprisonment as punishment?
• Are the facts found by the lower courts enough under Section 354(3) of the CrPC to serve as a “special reason” for imposing the death penalty?

Arguments- The arguments in the case were

Appellant's Argument: The appellant argued that imposing the death penalty under Section 302 of the IPC, along with Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was unfair and arbitrary due to several reasons, which are-

(a) It was cruel, inhuman, and disproportionate, making it an excessive form of punishment.

(b) It was unnecessary and did not contribute to any social benefit or uphold any constitutional values.

(c) The discretion given to courts to impose the death penalty lacked clear guidelines or principles from the legislature, making it arbitrary.

State's Argument: The State defended the validity of the death penalty, arguing that:

(a) The constitutionality of the death penalty had already been settled by a five-judge Constitution Bench in Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P. (AIR 1973 SC 947), and it should not be revisited.

(b) The death penalty was neither cruel nor inhuman, and it was not disproportionate or excessive.

(c) It served an essential social purpose by achieving two key objectives of criminal law: expressing society's condemnation of severe crimes and acting as a deterrent.

(d) The discretion given to judges for awarding the death penalty was not arbitrary, as courts had the capacity to develop standards and norms to guide their decisions in such cases.

Decision of the Court-

The Supreme Court rejected the challenge to the constitutionality of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which allows for the death penalty, and Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court decided that the six fundamental rights under Article 19(1) are not absolute. These rights come with limits because every person in society must exercise their rights without harming the rights of others who have the same. The court also emphasized that the state must be able to place reasonable restrictions on these rights for Article 19 Clauses (2) to (6) to be effective. The court made it clear that the state’s authority to set these reasonable limits is an essential part of Article 19 Clauses (2) to (6).

Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CRPC) requires courts to provide "special reasons" when imposing the death penalty. This means that there must be clear and unique circumstances that are extremely serious to justify such a sentence, distinguishing it from cases that result in life imprisonment. The Court introduced the principle of "rarest of rare cases" for awarding the death penalty. It emphasized that respecting human dignity requires avoiding the use of the death penalty unless absolutely necessary. The Court stated that the death penalty should only be given when no other option is possible. Thus, it upheld the validity of the laws permitting the death penalty.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty but placed strict boundaries on its use. By introducing the "rarest of the rare" doctrine, the court ensured that capital punishment would only be used in the most extraordinary cases where no other punishment would be sufficient. This approach emphasized the careful and restrained application of the death penalty, aiming to balance justice with humanity and fairness.