Bachan Singh Case (1980)
– Constitutional Validity of Death Penalty
Background of the Case
Bachan Singh was convicted of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which prescribes → Death penalty, or Life imprisonment
He challenged the constitutional validity of the death penalty on the ground that it violates:
- Article 19 – Protection of freedoms
- Article 21 – Right to life and personal liberty
Core Constitutional Questions
- Is the death penalty for murder unconstitutional?
- Does capital punishment violate Articles 19 and 21?
- What safeguards must govern the imposition of death penalty?
Supreme Court’s Judgement
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the death penalty, but with strict limitations.
(a) Death Penalty Does Not Violate Article 19
The Court held that:
- Article 19(1) guarantees certain freedoms, not the freedom to commit murder
- Therefore, Section 302 IPC does not infringe Article 19
This clarified that criminal acts are not protected activities.
(b) Death Penalty Is Compatible with Article 21
The Court observed that:
Article 21 permits deprivation of life if done → In accordance with a valid law → Through a fair, just and reasonable procedure
Since Section 302 IPC:
- Is a validly enacted law
- Provides judicial safeguards
Hence, capital punishment does not per se violate Article 21.
(c) “Rarest of Rare” Doctrine Introduced
The most important contribution of this judgment was the formulation of the ‘rarest of rare cases’ doctrine.
The Court held that:
- Life imprisonment is the rule
- Death penalty is an exception
Death penalty should be imposed only when:
- The alternative option of life imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed
- The case falls within the rarest of rare category
(d) Crime and Criminal Both Must Be Considered
The Court further laid down that:
- Courts must consider:
- Circumstances of the crime (brutality, motive, impact)
- Circumstances of the criminal (age, background, possibility of reform)
This ensured:
- Individualised sentencing
- Protection against arbitrary punishment
Constitutional Significance
This judgment:
- Harmonised Article 21 (life) with criminal justice needs
- Prevented mechanical imposition of death penalty
- Introduced judicial restraint and humanitarian considerations
- Balanced societal interest and individual rights
Impact of the Judgement
(a) Establishment of Sentencing Doctrine
The ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine became:
- The guiding principle for all death penalty cases
- A binding precedent for lower courts
(b) Influence on Subsequent Cases
The doctrine influenced later judgments such as:
- Machhi Singh vs. State of Punjab (1983)
- Santosh Kumar Bariyar (2009)
- Shatrughan Chauhan (2014)
Place in Article 21 Evolution
| Phase | Nature of Article 21 |
|---|---|
| A.K. Gopalan | Narrow |
| Maneka Gandhi | Expansive |
| Bachan Singh | Balanced & humane |
Summary
The Bachan Singh Case (1980) upheld the constitutional validity of the death penalty, but confined its application to the ‘rarest of rare cases’, ensuring that capital punishment remains an exception, not the rule.