Context:
A recent report by Project 39A, a research and litigation initiative at National Law University, Delhi, reveals that the Supreme Court of India has not upheld a single death sentence in the past three years (2023–2025). Despite an increase in death sentences awarded by trial courts, this trend underscores the apex court’s cautious and rights-oriented approach toward capital punishment.
Key Findings of the Report:
-
-
- No Death Sentence Confirmed by the Supreme Court (2023–2025): Over the last three years, the Supreme Court has either commuted death sentences to life imprisonment or acquitted the accused, highlighting the rigorous scrutiny applied at the appellate stage.
- High Acquittal and Commutation Rates: In 2025, more than half of the death penalty cases decided by the Supreme Court resulted in acquittals, the highest such proportion since 2016.
- Rising Death Row Population: Despite appellate restraint, 574 individuals were on death row at the end of 2025, the highest number recorded since 2016.
- No Death Sentence Confirmed by the Supreme Court (2023–2025): Over the last three years, the Supreme Court has either commuted death sentences to life imprisonment or acquitted the accused, highlighting the rigorous scrutiny applied at the appellate stage.
-
Judicial Approach towards the Death Penalty:
The Supreme Court has consistently emphasised procedural safeguards, fair trial standards, and individualised sentencing. Key elements of this approach include:
-
-
- Procedural Safeguards: In Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022), the Court mandated that trial courts must consider psychological evaluations, probation officer reports, and prison conduct records. Non-compliance with these requirements has been deemed a violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
- Article 32 Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court retains the authority to revisit death sentences through writ petitions where procedural safeguards have been violated.
- Emphasis on Mitigation: Even in cases involving heinous crimes, factors such as the convict’s age, socio-economic background, and potential for reform are increasingly considered to determine whether the punishment meets the “rarest of rare” threshold.
- Procedural Safeguards: In Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022), the Court mandated that trial courts must consider psychological evaluations, probation officer reports, and prison conduct records. Non-compliance with these requirements has been deemed a violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
-
Contrasts within the Justice System:
-
-
- Trial Courts vs. Appellate Scrutiny: Trial courts continue to impose death sentences with relative frequency; however, a majority of these sentences are overturned or commuted by the High Courts or the Supreme Court.
- High Courts’ Mixed Role: While High Courts occasionally confirm death sentences, only a small proportion withstands scrutiny at the Supreme Court level.
- Trial Courts vs. Appellate Scrutiny: Trial courts continue to impose death sentences with relative frequency; however, a majority of these sentences are overturned or commuted by the High Courts or the Supreme Court.
-
About Project 39A:
Project 39A, inspired by Article 39A of the Constitution, focuses on criminal justice reform, legal aid, and death penalty litigation. Its research indicates that a significant proportion of death row inmates belong to economically vulnerable, socially backward, or minority communities. The initiative provides pro bono legal representation and undertakes research on forensic science, mental health, and procedural fairness.
Implications for India’s Death Penalty Regime:
The Supreme Court’s restrained approach has reignited debates on judicial humanitarianism versus public confidence in the justice system, the gap between legal principles and ground-level practices, and the need for uniform adherence to sentencing safeguards across courts.
Conclusion:
The three-year record of the Supreme Court not upholding any death sentence marks a transformative phase in India’s capital punishment jurisprudence. While it strengthens constitutional safeguards and ethical fairness, it also highlights persistent systemic challenges in trial-level adjudication. The debate over capital punishment in India continues to navigate the complex balance between retribution, deterrence, and human rights within an evolving justice framework.
