[Answered] Has judicial discretion in death penalty sentencing evolved into robust due process? Analyze procedural safeguards.

Introduction

In Bachan Singh (1980), the Supreme Court upheld capital punishment but required exceptional sentencing; Manoj (2022) strengthened mitigation procedures, yet 95.18% of assessable 2025 trial-court cases reportedly failed compliance, raising questions about due process and implementation.

Evolution of Death Penalty Due Process

1. Jurisprudential Correction: Machhi Singh (1983) encouraged crime-centric reasoning, while Ravji (1995) wrongly privileged offence gravity over the offender’s circumstances. Santosh Kumar Bariyar (2009) corrected this approach, reaffirming the centrality of reformation.
2. Mitigating Arbitrary Judicial Discretion: Bachan Singh (1980) sought to curb subjective sentencing, but empirical studies reveal judges apply the rarest of rare standard inconsistently. Example:  Unpredictable bench-dependent sentencing.
3. Proceduralization of Mitigating Circumstances: Manoj v. MP (2022) transformed vague mitigation checks into mandatory, proactive state submissions. Example:  Mandatory psychiatric profiling.
4. Holistic Reformative Potential Assessments: Manoj v. MP (2022), placed the burden on the prosecution to prove that an accused is beyond reform using objective behavioral data. Example:  Jail conduct reports.
5. Legal Representation Deficits at Sentencing: Indigent death-row convicts often face ineffective legal counsel during the crucial mitigation phase of capital trials. Example:  Ineffective legal aid.
6. Corrective Constitutional Review: In Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. Union of India (2025), the Court held that serious breaches of these safeguards could justify reopening a concluded sentencing process under Article 32.

Constitutional and Reformative Imperatives

1. Substantive Due Process (Article 21): Post-Maneka Gandhi (1978), procedures depriving life must be fair, just, and reasonable, requiring strict procedural safeguards. Example:  Article 21 fairness.
2. Institutionalization of Mitigation Specialists: Integrating probation officers, psychologists, and social workers into trial defenses establishes evidence-based sentencing. Example:  Mitigation specialist integration.
3. Alignment with International Standards: Following the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the Law Commission 262nd Report, judicial norms increasingly favor narrowing capital offences. Example:  Law Commission 262^nd.

Persisting Gaps

1. Implementation: Trial courts sentenced 128 people to death in 2025; 95.18% of assessable cases skipped Manoj.
2. Acquittals: Nearly a third of High Court and Supreme Court death sentences ended in acquittal over a decade.
3. Flawed investigations: Supreme Court acquitted in 10 of 19 cases in 2025, citing flawed prosecutions.
4. Forensic opacity: Dupare noted confessions extracted in opacity and forensics of doubtful rigour.
5. Legal aid deficit: Indigent convicts often receive ineffective counsel at mitigation stage.

Way Forward

1. Institutionalize Dedicated Mitigation Cells: Establish specialized mitigation investigator units within State Legal Services Authorities (SLSA) to gather comprehensive social-background evidence.
2. Standardize Trial Court Sentencing Guidelines: Frame clear, objective rules under Section 354(3) CrPC (and BNSS provisions) to ensure uniform application of mitigating factors across district courts.
3. Mandate Pre-Sentence Psychological Evaluations: Direct state mental health boards to conduct independent psychological assessments of capital accused prior to trial completion.
4. Refer Sentencing Inconsistencies to a Constitution Bench: Convene a Constitution Bench to reconcile conflicting Supreme Court rulings on capital punishment and lay down binding guidelines for lower courts.
5. Reassess proportionality: Implement the Law Commission’s reformative approach through informed legislative and public deliberation.

Conclusion

As emphasized by the 262nd Law Commission Report, procedural fairness is essential when the state claims the power to take a human life. Evolving from judicial discretion (Bachan Singh) to structured procedural safeguards (Manoj v. MP) strengthens constitutional due process under Article 21, reinforcing human dignity and rule of law.