The Death Penalty Dilemma: Justice Or Judicial Injustice?
- IJLLR Journal
- Apr 21
- 2 min read
Layba Rana, Jamia Millia Islamia University, New Delhi
Amaan Ahmed, Jamia Millia Islamia University, New Delhi
I. INTRODUCTION:
Imagine a courtroom where a single judgment decides whether a person lives or dies. The gavel strikes, and a life is condemned irrevocably. But what if the verdict was flawed? What if justice was not merely undermined, but compromised by procedural lapses or inadequate defence?
The death penalty remains one of the most controversial punishments between the ideal of justice, and the real possibility of an incorrect execution being served. There are people who have argued it is required for the heinous crimes, but others have problems with fairness, finality, and their system's fallibility.
The recent Supreme Court decision in Sovaran Singh Prajapati v. State of U.P.1 brought up this debate again, as the court set aside a death sentence for an unfair trial. It has very important questions: Is there a way a bad system can justify an irreversible punishment? Is capital punishment really a deterrent, or is it just a way for the state to get its revenge?
The debate concerning the death penalty does not seem to cool down and it is crucial to analyse the legal framework and the judicial evolution of the death penalty in the United States, as well as trends in international practice while considering the pressing issues and possible reforms that could be made in order to render justice more fair and equitable.
II. CURRENT LEGAL FRAMEWORK OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN INDIA
During the early years of independence, there were no rigid rules to decide when the death penalty should be applied. Judges enjoyed a great deal of discretion, and sentencing was unpredictable. The discretion for the first time faced challenge in Jagmohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1973),2 wherein the Supreme Court of India decided that capital punishment formed a part of the constitutional requirement and retained the right to life under Article 21 to not be absolute but rather subject to restraint through the due process of law. However, concerns regarding arbitrary sentencing remained unresolved.
