Subjectivity In Sentencing: Analysis Of The Rarest Of The Rare Doctrine
- IJLLR Journal
- 7 hours ago
- 1 min read
Anamta Khan, LLM, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi
ABSTRACT
The rarest-of-rare doctrine forms the constitutional threshold for imposing the death penalty in India, yet its application continues to be marked by ambiguity, subjectivity, and inconsistency. This paper examines the historical development of the doctrine from Bachan Singh to Machhi Singh, analysing how aggravating and mitigating factors have shaped India’s capital sentencing framework. Through a doctrinal and empirical review, the study highlights significant contradictions in judicial reasoning—especially between the “crime test” and the “criminal test”—and demonstrates how personal judicial philosophy contributes to divergent outcomes. The research further exposes systemic inconsistencies across trial courts, High Courts, and the Supreme Court, revealing that trial courts award death sentences far more readily, while higher courts frequently commute them. In practice, this analytical vacuum means that judicial discretion plays a dominant role: the values, social philosophy and personal attitudes of the sentencing judge or bench often determine what is deemed “rarest of rare.” Overall, the article argues that the rarest-of-rare doctrine, though constitutionally intended to restrict the death penalty, has resulted in unpredictable and uneven sentencing, raising concerns about fairness, uniformity, and constitutional compliance.
