Death Penalty in India – Explained Pointwise

According to an annual statistics report on death penalties in India (Published by Square Circle Clinic – a criminal justice initiative at the NALSAR University) the SC has not confirmed a single death penalty in the past 3 years.

Table of Content

What are the findings of the Report? What is the Judicial view on Death Penalty? What are arguments in favour of Death Penalty? What are the arguments in favour of abolition of Death Penalty? What should be the way forward?

What are the findings of the Report?

• Death Row Convicts: India had 574 prisoners – 550 men & 24 women – on death row as of Dec 2025. The average time spent on death row before acquittal was over 5 years, with some prisoners languishing for nearly a decade before being exonerated.
• Supreme Court Restraint: The Supreme Court has not confirmed a single death sentence in the last three years (2023–2025). In 2025, it acquitted 10 death-row prisoners – the highest number of such acquittals in a single year in a decade – citing “wrongful convictions” and “procedural failures.”
• Trial Court Enthusiasm: Conversely, Sessions Courts awarded 128 death sentences in 2025 alone. Nationwide, there are now 574 prisoners on death row (the highest since 2016), with Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, and Maharashtra holding the largest populations. The Session Courts have handed down 1310 death sentences nationwide between 2016-2025. 
• The Confirmation Gap: High Courts confirm only about 8% of the death sentences handed down by lower courts, with the rest being commuted to life imprisonment or resulting in acquittals. The Supreme Court’s stance has been even more restrictive, with no death sentence confirmed in the past 3 years. 
• Procedural Violation at Sentencing Stage: Despite clear guidelines laid down by SC in Manoj vs. State of Punjab Case, which mandated psychological evaluations, prison conduct reports, and mitigation hearings – nearly 95% of death sentences in 2025 were imposed without compliance.

  

What is the Judicial view on Death Penalty?

• Jagmohan Singh v. State of UP (1973): First upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty.
• Ediga Anamma v. the State of Andhra Pradesh, (1974): The Supreme Court (SC) laid down the principle that life imprisonment for the offence of murder is the rule and capital punishment is the exception in certain cases. The Court also stated that a special reason should be given if a court decides to impose a death sentence.
• Bachan Singh v. the State Of Punjab, (1980):The SC stated that the death penalty should be awarded only in ‘rarest of rare‘ cases. A case becomes rarest of rare when there is extreme culpability of the offender in committing the offence of murder; and an extreme cause of the offender in committing the offence of murder. The Supreme Court stated that it should be issued only when the alternative of a life sentence is ‘unquestionably foreclosed’. The death penalty should be awarded after seeing the aggravating and mitigating factors and balance of the same.
• Manoj vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022), the Court mandated that trial courts must conduct a thorough study of the convict’s background – including psychological evaluations and prison conduct reports – before deciding on a death sentence.

What are arguments in favour of Death Penalty?

1. Maintaining Deterrence: The foremost argument given in support is the level of deterrence maintained in society by awarding death penalty. Many people believe that a person may restrain himself from committing a heinous crime like murder if death penalty is awarded for it.
2. National Security: Some acts like waging war against the State, terrorism etc erodes the sanctity of our National Security framework. Such acts threaten the very existence of the country and its people. For instance, Ajmal Kasab was awarded the death sentence for carrying out 26/11 Mumbai attacks.
3. Acts that shake the collective conscience: Supporters of Death Penalty says that there are some acts which shakes the collective conscience of society and deserves nothing except death penalty. For instance, The Vinay Sharma v. the Union of India (2020) case, also famously known as the Nirbhaya gang-rape case, had shocked the conscience of the whole country. One of the accused committed suicide in jail and one of the accused was a juvenile so he was not sentenced to death. But the other four accused were sentenced to death and were also hanged in the year 2020.
4. Safety of Citizens: Proponents of capital punishment argue that some criminals commit most terrible of crimes and are beyond redemption (e.g., some accused of multiple rape cases). They show no remorse or repentance. There is no change of reform and should be awarded death sentence for safety of citizens.
5. Closure and Justice for Victims’ Families: For some families of victims, the execution of the perpetrator provides a definitive sense of closure and finality that life imprisonment may not. It can represent the conclusion of a long and painful legal process and a final affirmation that the justice system has taken the ultimate action on their behalf.
6. Preventing Vigilantism: If the law does not provide a punishment that the public deems “sufficient” for a horrific crime, there is a risk that citizens might take the law into their own hands.

What are the arguments in favour of abolition of Death Penalty?

1. High Degree of Subjectivity: There is a high degree of subjectivity in awarding death sentences as the judges find it difficult to balance the mitigating and aggravating factors.
2. Socio-Economic Bias: The death sentence is frequently used disproportionately on the poor, minorities, and members of racial, ethnic, political, and religious communities. According to the Death Penalty India Report 2016 (DPIR), approximately 75% of all convicts sentenced to death in India are from socio-economically underprivileged categories, such as Dalits, OBCs, and religious minorities.
3. Risk of Irreversible Error: Courts often give compensation to individuals who are wrongly convicted and have spent considerable time in jail due to an error by the State. However, if a person is wrongly hanged, then no amount of compensation can bring back the person and mitigate the error. Various studies (such as the Death Penalty India Report) have shown that trial courts frequently award death sentences based on flawed investigations or coerced confessions, only for these sentences to be overturned years later by the Supreme Court.
4. Inhumane: Human rights and dignity are incompatible with the death penalty. The death sentence is a violation of the right to life, which is the most fundamental of all human rights.
5. Capacity for Change: People in support of abolition of death penalty argue that every human has the potential for reform. Executing a prisoner eliminates the possibility of them ever making amends or contributing positively to society. Modern penology has shifted from Retribution (revenge) to Reformation (rehabilitation).
6. Mental Stress: In many cases the convicts have to undergo a huge term of imprisonment before being finally executed. The findings of Project 39A’s report ‘Deathworthy’ shows that the segregated, alienated and stigmatized experiences of being on a death row for a longer time result in mental illness.
7. Misuse: The death penalty can be used as a tool for political repression, to silence dissent, or target vulnerable groups (e.g., in authoritarian regimes).
8. Global Precedent – No correlation with low crime rates: Scandinavian countries like Norway, Sweden and Finland have one of the lowest crime rates in the world without death penalty. They focus on reforming the criminal rather than deterring him with stricter and harsh punishments. As of 2026, over 140 countries have abolished the death penalty in law or practice, making retentionist countries like India part of a shrinking minority.

Source: The Guardian

What should be the way forward?

1. Institutionalizing “Life without Remission”: The judiciary is increasingly viewing “Life Imprisonment for the remainder of natural life” as the standard alternative to execution. This satisfies the need for Retribution (the prisoner never leaves jail) while avoiding the moral and legal risks of Execution (irreversibility). 
2. Self-Executing Commutation: Legal experts suggest a “time-bound” rule: if a mercy petition is not decided by the President/Governor within a specific timeframe (e.g., 2–3 years), the sentence should automatically be commuted to life imprisonment.
3. Balancing Aggravating & Mitigating Factors: The SC should release updated guidelines on how to balance the aggravating and mitigating factors in cases. This will help in reducing subjectivity in awarding death penalty and reduce the instances of unnecessary award of death sentence.
4. Certainty of Punishment: The focus should be on ensuring certainty of punishment rather than quantum of punishment that will act as a better deterrent for criminals. Experts argue that the certainty of being caught and punished is a much stronger deterrent than the severity of the punishment itself.
5. The Ultimate Step: The long-term solution is for Parliament to follow the 262nd Law Commission Report and abolish the death penalty for all crimes except terrorism (262nd Law Commission Report (2015) recommended the abolition of the death penalty for all crimes except terrorism-related offenses and waging war against the state).

Conclusion:
The Law Commission in its 262nd report proposed that the death penalty should be abolished for all crimes excluding terrorism-related offences and war. The experience of the Scandinavian countries also supports this view. 

UPSC GS-2: Polity Read More: The Hindu