Due Process in Death Penalty Cases: From Bachan Singh to Dupare

Source: The Hindu

Introduction 

The Day Against the Death Penalty, observed on October 10, is a good occasion to ask how the Supreme Court's 1980 safeguards have worked in practice. In Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980), a Constitution Bench upheld capital punishment but limited it with guidelines on judicial discretion. In Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022), the Court added practical guidelines, including mental health evaluations and reports on the accused's conduct in custody. Taken together, the case law shows a long shift from a focus on the crime towards a focus on the person being sentenced. It also shows how far trial-court practice still lags behind.

What did the Court Lay Down in Bachan Singh Case? 

• In Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980), the Constitution Bench upheld the constitutional validity of the death penalty. 
• It made the penalty subject to specific guidelines on how judges use their discretion. 
• The Court followed the legislative scheme of Section 354(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, now Section 393(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023:  
  • Life imprisonment is the rule. 
  • A death sentence may be imposed only for "special reasons". 
• Courts must weigh the circumstances of the crime together with the circumstances of the accused. 
• Death may be imposed only where life imprisonment is "unquestionably foreclosed".

What is the Exceptionality Principle? 

• Under Bachan Singh, the death penalty is exceptional because of a real and lasting concern for the dignity of human life, not because of how rare an offence is. 
• The Court gave effect to this through individualised sentencing:  
  • Even when it is proportionate, a death sentence may be imposed only after the individual circumstances of the accused have been properly considered. 
  • Courts can examine how social, structural and psychological factors affect moral blameworthiness, and whether reformation is truly ruled out. 
• The State must prove, with evidence, that there is no probability of reformation.

How was the Bachan Singh Framework Weakened? 

• Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983): In Sangeet v. State of Haryana (2013), the Court later acknowledged that Machhi Singh moved the focus to the crime. In effect, it asked whether there were reasons to impose life imprisonment, not whether there were special reasons to impose death. 
• Ravji v. State of Rajasthan (December 1995): A two-judge Bench went further. It held that the nature and gravity of the offence, and not the circumstances of the criminal, decided the punishment. 
• Executions under Ravji:  
  • Ravji was hanged in May 1996, and Surja Ram in April 1997. 
  • Both were executed on a principle the Supreme Court later declared contrary to binding law.

How did the Court Correct Course in Bariyar? 

• In Santosh Kumar Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra (2009), the Supreme Court held that Ravji had been decided in ignorance of Bachan Singh, which made it per incuriam. 
• The Court noted that Ravji had been followed in at least six other cases in which death sentences were awarded. 
• Bariyar clarified that life imprisonment is "unquestionably foreclosed" only when the sentencing aim of reformation cannot be achieved. 
• In 2012, 14 retired judges described the executions of Ravji and Surja Ram as the gravest known miscarriage of justice in independent India.

How has the Focus on Reformation Developed? 

• Since Bariyar, and in the 262nd Law Commission Report (2015) among other places, reformation has been treated as a central goal in death penalty cases. 
• Trial-court sentencing, however, changed little:  
  • A nationwide study of 306 death sentences imposed between 2018 and 2020 found that 36.1% were pronounced on the same day as the conviction and 18.4% on the next day. 
  • In most cases, the defence neither argued mitigation nor presented evidence on it.

What did the Supreme Court Hold in Manoj and Later Cases? 

Faced with this crime-centric practice, the Supreme Court has recently turned to the fairness of the sentencing procedure itself. 

• Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022):  
  • The Court laid down practical guidelines for collecting information about the accused. 
  • The State must produce:  
    • Mental health evaluations of the accused 
    • Reports on the accused's conduct in custody 
    • A probation officer's report 
• Suo motu Writ Petition (referred to a Constitution Bench): The Court held that the defence must have a real and meaningful opportunity to present material on sentence. 
• Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. Union of India (2025):  
  • The Court held that the right to a sentencing hearing that complies with Manoj flows from Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. 
  • A death sentence imposed without such a hearing is unconstitutional. 
  • Such a sentence can be reopened even after it has attained finality. 
• Waris v. State of Madhya Pradesh (September 2026):  
  • The Court upheld a conviction for the rape and murder of a child but commuted the death sentence. 
  • The State had produced no evidence to rule out the possibility of reformation. 
  • The Court held that the gravity of a crime, however extreme, cannot on its own show that life imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed.

Is the Manoj Procedure Being Followed? 

• In 2025, trial courts sentenced 128 people to death. 
• In 95.18% of the cases where compliance could be assessed, trial courts did not follow the procedure prescribed in Manoj.

What is the Larger Concern? 

• The bigger problem lies with convictions, not only with sentencing:  
  • Over the past decade, nearly a third of the death sentences decided by the High Courts and the Supreme Court ended in acquittals. 
  • In 2025 alone, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused in 10 of the 19 death penalty cases it decided, repeatedly noting seriously flawed investigations and prosecutions. 
• In Dupare, the Court acknowledged that investigations often rest on confessions obtained without transparency and on forensic material of doubtful reliability. 
• A system this prone to error cannot safely decide an irreversible punishment on the basis of the crime alone. 
• Bachan Singh warned that judges should never be "bloodthirsty".

Conclusion 

From Bachan Singh to Dupare, the Supreme Court has built a set of procedural safeguards: individualised sentencing, a burden on the State to rule out reformation, and a meaningful sentencing hearing grounded in Articles 14 and 21. Ravji shows what happens when public anguish over brutal crimes overwhelms legal reasoning. These safeguards are not obstacles to justice. They are the conditions on which the constitutionality of the death penalty depends. Following them is not an act of mercy; the Constitution requires it. Trial courts still largely do not comply with Manoj, and many death-row convictions end in acquittal. That gap between precedent and practice is the main challenge for India's death penalty jurisprudence.