A Summary Of Capital Punishment In India
Author: LawSphereX
Category: Criminal Law
Published:
Updated:
A SUMMARY OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN INDIA
Ayush Das, JRSET College of Law Introduction: In the 21st century, one of the most hotly debated topics around the world is the death penalty or capital punishment. Capital punishment can be briefly defined as the state-sanctioned killing of a person for actual misconduct. While some countries view it as an essential tool for deterring crimes, other countries argue that it is a gross violation of human rights. There have been various requests for the abolishment of capital or death penalty from various international human rights organizations1, including the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC)2, and as a result, 144 countries3 have already abolished the death penalty and have replaced it with lifetime imprisonment or long-term imprisonment.
For example, France abolished the death penalty in 1981 and replaced it with life imprisonment, which included a parole after a safety period of 18-22 years. But 553 countries, including India, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and others, still practice it. In India, the debate surrounding the abolishment of the death penalty intensifies during high-profile cases such as the Nirbhaya Gang Rape Case (2012), the R. G. Kar Case (2024), terrorist cases, etc. While the judiciary uses the rarest of the rare doctrine when dealing with capital punishment, questions still exist regarding fairness and compliance with global human rights standards. So in this article, we take a deep dive and explore the legal landscape of capital punishment in India.
History of capital punishment around the world and in India: From the ancient period to the 19th century, capital punishment has served as a retributive and deterrent form of punishment in most societies. It was mainly used as a penalty for crimes such as murder, treason and theft. The first codification of the death penalty dates as far back as the 1 Council of Europe, Secretary General calls for abolition of death penalty at the Human Rights Council in Geneva, https://www. coe. int/en/web/portal/-/council-of-europe-secretary-general-calls-for-the-universal-abolition-of-thedeath-penalty-at-the-human-rights-council-in-geneva (Last visited on April 6, 2025)
2 United Nations Human Rights Council, UN Experts Call for Universal Abolition of the Death Penalty,
https://www. ohchr. org/en/press-releases/2023/10/un-experts-call-universal-abolition-death-penalty (Last visited on April 6, 2025) 3 World Coalition Against the Death Penalty, [1] Abolitionist and Retentionist Countries- Bullet points 4&5 https://worldcoalition. org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/FactsFigures2023_EN-v2. pdf (Last visited on April 7, 2025) 18th century BCE in the Code of Hammurabi4 of Babylon, which codified the death penalty for 25 different crimes. The Hittite Code (1650-1500 BCE), the Draconian Code of Athens (621 BCE), the Roman law of the Twelve Tables (450 BCE), etc. , are also some of the examples of ancient codifications which made the death penalty a part of their criminal justice system. Death penalties or capital punishments during those times were viewed as an entertainment which was attended by a large number of people as public events.
These societies also administered exceptionally cruel forms of punishment upon the criminals. Some of the popular methods of executions included breaking wheel where a person was tied to a large wheel and the executioner by using a heavy hammer would systematically smash the limbs of the person for maximum pain and then they were left to die slowly from the shock, Crucifixion which was primarily used by Romans where a person was nailed to a wooden cross and was left to die, Blood Eagle which was used by the Vikings where the executioner would slice open the back of the victim and would spread it open resembling wings, Brazen Bull was primarily used in ancient Greece where the person was locked into a metal bull and a fire was lit underneath the bull and the person would slowly roast and die, slow slicing, burning at the stake, boiling alive, etc.
However, from the 18th to 19th century, most of the countries started to develop more human forms of death penalties, and most of the cruel forms were abolished. After the end of World War II, the world was healing from massive violations of human rights, and as a result, a lot of international organizations, including the United Nations, started calling for the abolishment of the death penalty as a form of punishment. Many countries agreed to that and started to abolish death penalties and replace them with lifetime or long-term imprisonment. Some countries that abolished the death penalty include West Germany (1949), the United Kingdom (1965, except for some crimes until 1998), Sweden (1966), Canada (1976), France (1981), Poland (1997), Mexico (2005), the Philippines (2006), Mongolia (2017), etc.
A lot of countries have also abolished the practice of the death penalty even though they haven’t formally removed it from their legal systems. Some of these countries are Russia (last execution took place in 1996), Tajikistan (last execution took place in 2004), Morocco (no execution till 1993), Algeria (no execution till 1993), etc. The countries that refused to abolish the death penalty switched towards a more lethal way of execution. For example, executions in the US are done through electric chairs or lethal injections; in China, they are done through shooting or lethal injections; in India, they are done through hanging until dead, etc. All of 4 Raymond Paternoster, Robert Barne and Sarah Bacon, The Death Penalty: America’s Experience with Capital Punishment, Page-15 (Oxford University Press 2007).
these countries try to ensure that the person is executed without inflicting a lot of pain on their body, but still they continue to be a target for the local and international human rights organizations that constantly call for the total abolishment of the death penalty for any type of criminal activities. The roots of capital punishment in India can be traced back to ancient times, when it was an established form of justice in the Vedic and Mauryan periods5. The ancient Hindu texts, such as the Manusmriti6, also supported the death penalty for several crimes. Although the Mauryan emperor Asoka’s later reign marked a tilt towards non-violence after he embraced Buddhism, the provisions of the death penalty persisted in varying forms under successive regimes. Under the Mughal rule, executions were common and were often carried out by using brutal methods.
Some of those brutal methods included execution by an elephant, where the person was crushed to death under the feet of an elephant; slow slicing; boiling alive; burning alive; being torn apart by horses; etc. During the colonial rule, the British administration also made the death penalty a part of their criminal justice system and codified it under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)7. It was applicable to heinous crimes such as murder, mutiny, waging war against the state, etc. This legal foundation continued to influence India’s penal system post-independence. After the enactment of the Constitution of India in the year 1950, it did not abolish the death penalty but allowed Parliament and judiciary to regulate it. Since then the legality of the death penalty has been questioned multiple times both inside and outside the court of law.
Constitutional and legal framework of capital punishment in India: India is one of the countries that has neither completely abolished the provision of capital punishment nor created laws specifying its legality and validity. India is also not a signatory to the second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR8, which calls for the abolition of the death penalty. 5 Indian journal of Law and Legal Research, From Ancient Justice to Modern Controversy: Exploring the Genesis of the Death Penalty in India by Adv. Harish Pandey, Abstract, https://www. ijllr. com/post/from-ancient-justice-to-modern-controversy-exploring-the-genesis-of-the-deathpenalty-in-india (Last visited on 7th April, 2025) 6 Law Bhoomi, History of Capital Punishment in India by Aishwarya Agrawal, Ancient India and the Concept of Punishment, https://lawbhoomi.
com/history-of-capital-punishment-inindia/#Ancient_India_and_the_Concept_of_Punishment (Last visited on 7th April, 2025)
7 Indian Penal Code, No. 45 of 1860 (India)
8 United Nations, Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty (15 December 1989), https://www. ohchr. org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/second-optional-protocol-internationalcovenant-civil-and (Last visited on 3rd May, 2025) It follows the global trends of imposing the death penalty only in extreme cases. According to the government data since independence, only 57 people have been executed by death penalty. However, this number is refuted by many organizations and institutions, such as the Death Penalty India Report (DPIR)9, which was published by Project 39A with the help of National Law University Delhi, stating that at least 720 executions have been carried out in India since independence, out of which half of the executions have been carried out in Uttar Pradesh alone.
This has raised the question multiple times of whether the capital punishment in India violates the fundamental rights of a person or not. The answer to this question was provided by the Supreme Court for the first time in the landmark case of Jagmohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1973)10, where the accused, Jagmohan Singh, was convicted of murder and was sentenced to death by the trial court. This decision was challenged by him in the Supreme Court on the grounds that the death penalty violates Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. The main issue that was raised before the court was Article 21 of the Indian constitution, which guaranteed all the citizens the right to life and whether the state can violate that by imposing the death penalty.
The Supreme Court in this case upheld the validity of the death penalty and stated that capital punishment is a valid form of punishment under due process of the law and is not unconstitutional. The court also stated that the right to life can be taken away by a “procedure established by law”. The judgement of this case set the foundations for later cases regarding death penalties. In another landmark case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980)11, the Supreme Court introduced the ‘rarest of rare’ cases doctrine. The facts of the case include that Bachan Singh, the appellant here, was convicted for murdering three people, including his wife, and was sentenced to death under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), by the trial court, and it was upheld by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
He challenged this decision in the Supreme Court, arguing that the death penalty under section 302 of the IPC violated Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guaranteed the right to life to the citizens. The main issue after that in front of the apex court was whether section 302 of the IPC was arbitrary and unconstitutional. However, in the judgement with a 4:1 majority, the apex court upheld the constitutional validity of the death penalty yet again and also introduced the doctrine of ‘rarest 9 Centre on the Death Penalty, National Law University Delhi, Death Penalty in India: Annual Statistics Report
2022 (Project 39A, 2023) https://www.project39a.com/dpir (Last visited 3rd May, 2025)
10 Jagmohan Singh v State of UP (1973) 1 SCC 20
11 Bachan Singh v State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684.
of rare’ cases. According to this doctrine, to sentence a person to death, the crime test should be fully satisfied, and it should not favour the accused in any circumstances. The courts shall also consider the socioeconomic conditions of the accused and the degree of the crime committed for awarding a death punishment. For example, in the Nirbhaya gang rape case, where four out of the five accused were executed by death penalty for the heinous crime, one accused was relieved from it because he was a minor. In short, the court must ensure that the death penalty is not arbitrarily awarded, but it is given only when the situation arises where imprisonment won’t ensure fair justice to repay the society for the crime. Moreover, the court usually awards the death penalty not on its will but rather when the situation demands it to do so.
These judicial precedents have helped in understanding the constitutional validity of capital punishment in India, where Article 21 guarantees that “no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. " The apex court has interpreted this to mean that capital punishment can be awarded, but only through a fair, just and reasonable legal procedure. To ensure that the process is fair and reasonable, Article 39A of the Indian Constitution provides free legal aid to the poor and weaker sections of the society. This also ensures that citizens are not denied justice due to economic or other disabilities. Apart from providing legality and fairness, the constitution also provides safeguards against the misuse of the death penalty.
Under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution, a person in a death sentence which has been confirmed by the high court can appeal to the Supreme Court. This is known as the Special Leave Petition (SLP), where the accused can make a request to the Supreme Court of India to hear an appeal against a lower court's decision. This is generally done when a substantial question of law is involved and the high court refuses to issue a certificate of fitness to appeal12 to the Supreme Court. Under Article 137 of the Indian Constitution, the Supreme Court has the power to review its own judgement, allowing a convict to seek reconsideration of the death sentence. Under Article 145, the convict can file a curative petition to the Supreme Court. A curative petition is a legal tool that allows the Supreme Court to review its own decisions and is based on Article 137 of the Constitution of India.
It acts as a last resort to rectify a grave miscarriage of justice in exceptional circumstances after the dismissal of the review petition. The Constitution not only provides for safeguards against the death penalty through the judicial branch but also through the executive branch of the government. Article 72 & 161 of the Constitution provides mercy or pardoning powers to the government against the death penalty. Under Article 72, the President of India has the power to grant pardon, reprieve, respite, remission or commutation of a death sentence. Where: • Pardon – completely absolves the convict of the crime and its legal consequences. • Reprieve – Temporary suspension of the sentence , especially to allow time for appeal or reconsideration. • Respite – Reduction of the sentence considering special circumstances like health or pregnancy.
• Remission – Reduces the duration of the sentence without changing its nature. • Commutation – substitutes one form of punishment with a lesser one (e. g. , death penalty commuted to life imprisonment. ) Under Article 161, the Governor of the State can suspend, remit or commute a death sentence within the state’s jurisdiction. These clemency powers serve as a check on judicial errors and help in maintaining a balance between judicial authority and executive power. However, it is important to note that the clemency power under these two articles cannot be arbitrary and is subject to constitutional limitations and judicial review to prevent misuses. Several times the Supreme Court has established through its judgements that clemency powers must be exercised fairly without bias and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. In the 2006 case of Epuru Sudhakar & Ors. v.
Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. 13, the Supreme Court provided a landmark judgement regarding the pardoning or clemency power of the government. The facts in this case include that a political worker of Congress murdered another political worker of the Telugu Desham Party and was awarded ten years of rigorous imprisonment by
13 Epuru Sudhakar & Anr. V. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (2006). 8 SCC 161
the trial court. However, after a few months, the wife of the Congress political worker won elections in the Andhra Pradesh legislative assembly and was appointed as a MLA. After that she made a representation for the grant of parole for her husband a few times, where he would easily receive the parole within weeks. The wife further went ahead and sought pardon from the Governor of Andhra Pradesh for her husband under Article 161 of the Indian Constitution. Since the governor was from the UPA government and so was the Congress political worker and his wife, within one year, i. e. , on 11th August 2005, the governor granted remission of the unexpired sentences, and he was released from the prison.
After witnessing this, the sons of the deceased political worker of the Telugu Desham Party were aggrieved and knocked on the doors of the Andhra Pradesh High Court to review the remission that was awarded. The Hon’ble Court quashed the order of the pardon of the governor on the basis of political affairs and called it a violation of basic principles of natural justice. After that a writ petition was filed by the Congress party political worker under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution in the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s decision. However, the apex court upheld the decision of the High Court and ruled that the President and Governor’s pardoning power could be quashed if it was based on caste, religious or political considerations.
The court also held that the pardoning powers under Articles 72 and 161 are subject to judicial review if exercised arbitrarily or in bad faith. The pardon was revoked, and the Congress political worker’s sentence was restored. Apart from the Constitution, the statutory laws in India provide a legal framework regarding offences that attract death penalty. Here is a list14 of acts along with their sections that provide for capital punishment: Penal Code, 1860) BNS or Bharatitya Nyaya Sanhita, 70(2) Gang rape of a child under 18 years of age. (Formally 376D IPC or Indian Penal Code, 1860) BNS or Bharatitya Nyaya Sanhita, Repeat offenses in the context of a rape. (Formally 376E IPC or Indian Penal Code, 1860) BNS or Bharatitya Nyaya Sanhita, 103(1) Murder. (Formally IPC or Indian Penal Code, 1860) BNS or Bharatitya Nyaya Sanhita, 103(2) Lynching.
BNS or Bharatitya Nyaya Sanhita, Murder by prisoner serving life sentence. (Formally IPC or Indian Penal Code, 1860) BNS or Bharatitya Nyaya Sanhita, Abetment of suicide of child or person of unsound mind. (Formally IPC or Indian Penal Code, 1860) IPC or Indian Penal Code, 1860) BNS or Bharatitya Nyaya Sanhita, Abetment of mutiny, if mutiny is actually committed in consequence. (Formally IPC or Indian Penal Code, 1860) BNS or Bharatitya Nyaya Sanhita, 230(2) Giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of capital (Formally offence resulting in death of innocent IPC or Indian person. Penal Code, 1860) BNS or Bharatitya Nyaya Sanhita, 232(2) Threatening any person to give false evidence resulting in death of innocent (Formally 195A person. IPC or Indian Penal Code, 1860) BNS or Bharatitya Nyaya Sanhita, 310(3) Felony Murder while committing dacoity or bandity.
The Organized Crime Act, 2001 3(1) Organized crime resulting in death of person. Army Act, 1950 Offences in relation to enemy and punishable with death. Army Act, 1950 Mutiny.
Coast Guard Act, 1978 Mutiny. Coast Guard Act, 1978 Civil offences. The Commission of Sati Abetment of Sati. (Prevention) Act, 1987 The Defence of India, Act, 1971 Person contravening with intent to wage war or assist external aggression or any violation of provision made under S.3. The Geneva Convention Act, 1960 3 Grave breaches of Geneva Convention. The Explosive Substances Act, 3(b) Punishment for special category of offences relating to explosive substances, likely to danger life or cause serious harm. The Indo-Tibetan Border Police Offences in relation to enemy of terrorist. Force, Act, 1992 The Indo-Tibetan Border Police Mutiny. Force, Act, 1992 The Indo-Tibetan Border Police 20(1)(a) Desertion. Force, Act, 1992 The Indo-Tibetan Border Police Civil offences. Force, Act, 1992 The Karnataka Control of 3(1)(i) Organized crime resulting in death of a Organised Crime Act, 2000 person.
Debate on capital punishment in India: In India, the concept of capital punishment or death penalty always stays in the debate. Where one group of people tries to justify the punishment as a need of the society to prevent crime, another group cites that it is a gross violation of human rights which affects the principles of natural justice, and hence it must be abolished. Let’s take a deep dive and try to understand both perspectives of this debate. • Arguments in favor of capital punishment:
1) Capital punishment acts as a deterrent against heinous crimes-
The main argument that is provided by the supporters of the death penalty is that it helps in deterring crime, which means the fear of the death penalty will prevent people from committing crimes like terrorism, murder, rape, serial killings, etc. Capital punishment is based on the deterrent theory of punishment, which was founded by Italian criminologist Cesare Beccaria and British philosopher Jeremy Bentham. The main idea according to this theory was that by imposing harsh penalties on offenders, others will be discouraged from committing similar offences. An example of this would be the hanging of Afzal Guru15 in 2013, which was meant to discourage terrorism in India.
2) Capital punishment serves as a retaliatory punishment-
Capital punishment is not only a part of the deterrent theory of punishment but also a part of the retributive theory of punishment. The founder of this theory is Immanuel Kant, and it is based on the famous saying “tit for tat” or “an eye for an eye”. The main motive of this theory is to inflict a similar amount of pain on the offender that is endured by the aggrieved party due to the offender’s activities. Supporters of the death penalty by using this theory argue that those who have taken the life of another person have forfeited their own right to life. For example, in the case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, the accused was hanged to death because he took the life of another person. It is also important to note that capital punishment, most of the time, serves as both a deterrent and a retributive form of punishment.
15 State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru, (2005) 11 SCC 600
3) Provides justice and closure-
The supporters argue that victims, families and society feel a sense of justice when the guilty receive the ultimate punishment. Imprisonment may not make up for the crime the offender has committed. For example, the execution of the Nirbhaya16 case convicts was seen as justice for the brutal crime and repayment to the family of the victim and the society.
4) Utilitarian argument-
Supporters of the death penalty believe that it has a strong impact on offenders to whom the threat of imprisonment is not a sufficient punishment.
5) Reserved for the “rarest of rare” cases-
The “rarest of the rare” cases doctrine was provided by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980). This doctrine is used by the supporters to argue that the death punishment is not arbitrarily awarded. The court takes into consideration the socio-economic status, mental status, age, etc., of the offender before pronouncing the death penalty. Most of the time the courts award death penalty not on its will but because the situation demands it to do so.
6) Safeguards provided by the judicial and executive body of the government-
The supporters also argue that apart from the judiciary, some relief against the death penalty is also provided by the executive branch. Under Articles 72 and 161, the Constitution empowers the President and Governor of the States with clemency powers. It serves as an additional check by an authority outside the ambit of the judiciary. However, it is important to keep in mind that clemency or pardoning powers of the executive body cannot be arbitrary and are subject to judicial interpretation. • Arguments against capital punishment:
1) The death penalty violates human rights-
People who are against the death penalty primarily argue that it is a massive violation of human
16 Mukesh & Anr v. State for NCT of Delhi & Ors., (2017) 6 SCC 1
rights. They argue that the death penalty violates the right to life of a person that is provided to every citizen under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Even international organizations such as the United Nations Human Rights Council, Amnesty International, etc. , call for the abolition on the same grounds that it violates the natural rights of a person. In response to this argument, the apex court in India has already provided a ruling in the landmark case of Jagmohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, where the court said that the right to life of a person can be taken away by a “procedure established by the law”, and hence the death penalty is not unconstitutional. Further, in the case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, the apex court introduced the “rarest of rare” cases doctrine.
Under this doctrine, the court must ensure that the death penalty is not awarded arbitrarily and every factor, such as socioeconomic condition, age, etc. , is taken into consideration. The court awards the death penalty to the accused only when other forms of punishment won’t provide justice to the victim or society.
2) Possibility of errors in sentencing death penalty-
The Indian judicial system is not absolute and is prone to making mistakes. An example of this can be seen in the case of Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra17, where the trial court made the mistake of not applying the “rarest of the rare” cases doctrine and ignored the mitigating factors, such as the convict’s possibility of reform, and awarded him the death penalty, which was also upheld by the Bombay High Court. The Supreme Court acknowledged the fault and commuted his death penalty to life imprisonment, citing inconsistencies in past death penalty cases. The judgement also emphasised that the death penalty must not be awarded arbitrarily and should consider both crime and criminal. Apart from this, the judiciary also depends on witnesses, evidence, documents and statements from third-party individuals, which can be easily forged or manipulated.
Given the irreversible nature of the punishment, such errors can lead to the execution of innocent individuals.
3) Deterrence debate-
The supporters of the death penalty primarily justify capital punishment on the basis that it helps in preventing crime; however, studies and research have shown that there is no connection between the death penalty and the reduction of crime. For example, in India, crimes such as murder and rape continue to occur despite both of them attracting the death penalty.
17 Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 6 SCC 498.
Critics argue that strengthening law enforcement and judicial efficiency would be a better way to reduce crime.
4) Moral debate-
People who are against the death penalty also argue that by legitimizing the killing of a person, it conveys a wrong message to the very behavior it seeks to repress.
5) Impact on families-
The death penalty not only affects the convict but also people around them. Families of both the victim and convict endure social and emotional trauma.
6) Execution methods-
In India, the primary method of execution is hanging until death, which many consider outdated and inhuman. In most of the countries that practice the death penalty, it has shifted to a more lethal form of execution, such as in the US, where lethal injections are used, which are comparatively less painful and more humane compared to hanging by the neck. The 262nd report, titled “The Death Penalty”18, submitted by the Law Commission in 2015, was a landmark document that recommended abolishing the death penalty for all crimes except for terrorism-related offences and waging war against the state. There were few observations made within this report, which included that there is no conclusive evidence which suggests capital punishment acts as a deterrent and also that judicial errors and biases make the system unreliable.
Moreover, the report also suggested that India should align with global human rights standards and slowly phase out capital punishment. Conclusion: From ancient legal codes to modern judicial precedents, the evolution of the death penalty or capital punishment, reflects the changing societal values all around the world. Some countries around the world practice it, citing that it serves as a deterrent and ensures justice, while other
18 Law Commission of India, Twentieth Law Commission, Report no. 262 (2015)
https://cdnbbsr. s3waas. gov. in/s3ca0daec69b5adc880fb464895726dbdf/uploads/2022/08/2022081670. pdf (Last visited 10th May, 2025) countries have banned it, claiming it is a gross violation of natural human rights. So as a human, it is crucial to question whether the death penalty truly serves justice or if alternative punishment, such as life imprisonment without parole, can be equally effective. India is one of the countries that continue to practice the death penalty but under the “rarest of rare” cases doctrine to ensure that it is only used in extreme cases. The judiciary and some statutory bodies at times have also shown an inclination towards growing global trends of abolishing the death penalty.
However, until and unless it is abolished, the death penalty will remain as an open question within the country, which would require a careful and balanced answer of legal, moral and societal considerations.
References
Cases • Bachan Singh v State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684 (SC). • Jagmohan Singh v State of UP (1973) 1 SCC 20 (SC). • Macchi Singh v State of Punjab (1983) 3 SCC 470 (SC). • Epuru Sudhakar v Govt of Andhra Pradesh (2006) 8 SCC 161 (SC). • Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v State of Maharashtra (2009) 6 SCC 498 (SC).
Mukesh & Anr v. State for NCT of Delhi & Ors., (2017) 6 SCC 1 • State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru, (2005) 11 SCC 600 Legislation & Constitutional Provisions • Constitution of India, 1950. • Indian Penal Code, 1860. • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. • Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. • Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. • Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. • Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. • The Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Acts, 1989 • The Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999
The Karnataka Control of Organised Crime Act, 2000 • The Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force, Act, 1992 • The Explosive Substances Act, 1908 • The Geneva Convention Act, 1960 • The Defence of India, Act, 1971 • The Commission of Sati (Prevention) Act, 1987 • Coast Guard Act, 1978 • Border Security Force Act, 1968 • Bombay Prohibition (Gujarat Amendment Act, 2009) • Assam Rifles Act, 2006 • Army Act, 1950 International Instruments • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976) 999 UNTS 171 Reports • Law Commission of India, 262nd Report on the Death Penalty (August 2015). • World Coalition Against the Death Penalty, ‘21st World Day – Facts and Figures 2023 (https://worldcoalition. org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/FactsFigures2023_EN-v2.
pdf (Last visited on April 7, 2025) • Centre on the Death Penalty, National Law University Delhi, Death Penalty in India: Annual Statistics Report 2022 (Project 39A, 2023)
Articles • Council of Europe, Secretary General calls for abolition of death penalty at the Human Rights Council in Geneva, https://www. coe. int/en/web/portal/-/council-ofeurope-secretary-general-calls-for-the-universal-abolition-of-the-death-penalty-atthe-human-rights-council-in-geneva (Last visited on April 6, 2025) • United Nations Human Rights Council, UN Experts Call for Universal Abolition of the Death Penalty, https://www. ohchr. org/en/press-releases/2023/10/un-experts-calluniversal-abolition-death-penalty (Last visited on April 6, 2025) • Indian journal of Law and Legal Research, From Ancient Justice to Modern Controversy: Exploring the Genesis of the Death Penalty in India by Adv. Harish Pandey, https://www. ijllr.
com/post/from-ancient-justice-to-modern-controversyexploring-the-genesis-of-the-death-penalty-in-india (Last visited on 7th April, 2025) • Law Bhoomi, History of Capital Punishment in India by Aishwarya Agrawal, https://lawbhoomi. com/history-of-capital-punishment-inindia/#Ancient_India_and_the_Concept_of_Punishment (Last visited on 7th April, 2025) • Capital punishment in India, https://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_India (Last visited on 3rd May) Book(s) • Raymond Paternoster, Robert Brame and Sarah Bacon, The Death Penalty: America’s Experience with Capital Punishment (Oxford University Press 2008).