In February, a special court in the state of Uttar Pradesh in northern India handed down death sentences to seven men convicted of being "Islamic State" (IS) operatives.
The men were arrested in 2017 after officials received information about the group's plan to carry out blasts in different parts of the South Asian country.
They were charged for terror activities, including a bomb blast on a train in 2017.
A spokesperson for the National Investigation Agency (NIA) told the media that the group had undergone "online radicalization" and was aiming to promote IS ideology in India.
While the NIA termed the judgment as "another milestone," the death penalty has been a much debated theme in the country.
By coincidence, the same day that the men were sentenced, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk demanded that all nations work harder toward abolishing capital punishment, which continues to be implemented in 79 countries.
"If we maintain this momentum to eradicate this inhumane punishment once and for all, we can weave a thread of dignity back into the fabric of our societies," he said.
Debate around the death penalty
Indian courts can impose capital punishment for crimes such as murder, child sexual violence, and terrorism, among others.
The year 1980 marked a crucial point in the debate around the death penalty.
A trial court in the state of Punjab sentenced to death a man named Bachan Singh for the murder of three men.
Singh appealed to the high court of the state, which upheld the sentence. Then he approached the Supreme Court of India, asking it to examine the constitutionality of capital punishment in a case that led to a landmark ruling.
Subsequently, a five-judge bench was appointed, which laid out a framework and guidelines to be considered when sentencing someone to death in India.
Gaps in the sentencing framework
The Bachan Singh case led to the establishment of the "rarest of rare" doctrine, meaning that courts should only impose the death penalty in the rarest of rare cases.
The guidelines also required trial courts to consider both a crime and a convicted person's life circumstances — such as their age, family background, socio-economic status and mental health problems — before deciding on a sentence.
Furthermore, they stipulated that a death sentence should be handed down only if a state can prove that a convict is beyond reform.
Despite the guidelines' emphasis on reformative justice, they still left many questions unanswered.
There was no clarity on who should collect evidence on the life circumstances of a convicted person or who should submit it in court, and how much time the data collection should take or how a court should assess the life circumstances.
Research conducted by Project 39A, a legal research, pro bono litigation & public engagement center, revealed that the life circumstances of the accused had not been not considered in 66.7% of the trials that had resulted in 306 death sentences between 2018 and 2020.
Observers say the handing down of death sentences is thus inconsistent, arbitrary and potentially discriminatory as sentencing can fall prey to the bias and prejudices of a judge.
In 2022, for the first time in 42 years, the Supreme Court acknowledged the gaps in the current sentencing framework and put together another constitutional bench to resolve them.
But as the Supreme Court seeks ways to reform death penalty sentencing, trial courts across India continue to hand down capital punishment.
Last year saw 165 death sentences — the highest number in over two decades.
The "Death Penalty in India: Annual Statistics Report 2022" revealed that by the end of 2022, 539 people were on death row in India, the highest number since 2004.
Not enough support?
In 2015, the debate around the death penalty in the country gained momentum. After conducting a detailed study, a Law Commission report called for its abolition, except for in terrorism-related cases.
The report argued that the death penalty is unconstitutional and an infringement of Article 14 (right to equality before law) and Article 21 (right to life) of the Indian constitution.
"The restorative and rehabilitative aspects of justice are lost sight of," read the report.
In 2018, the Indian Home Ministry asked various state governments to respond to a proposal on abolishing the death penalty.
Of the 14 states that responded, only two supported putting an end to capital punishment. The remaining 12 argued that the death penalty is needed to deter people from committing serious and violent crimes.
Rights groups and activists say, however, that evidence from around the world shows that the death penalty has no unique deterrent effect on crime.
Not many executions overall
Since 1976, more than 90 nations have abolished the death penalty for all crimes.
Apart from India, many countries including US, Japan, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Iraq continue to impose capital punishment.
In December 2022, at the UN General Assembly, 125 countries voted in favor of a moratorium on the death penalty. India voted against it.
In 2021, at the UN Human Rights Council, India also opposed a draft resolution calling for a moratorium on the death penalty.
Nevertheless, the actual number of executions in India remains comparatively low.
Since 2000, India has carried out just eight executions in total.
_____________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
FOLLOW US ON:
TELEGRAM
TWITTER
CONTACT: deathpenaltynews@gmail.com
"One is absolutely sickened, not by the crimes that the wicked have committed,
but by the punishments that the good have inflicted."
— Oscar Wilde
but by the punishments that the good have inflicted."
— Oscar Wilde