How the Supreme Court Built Due Process in Death Penalty Cases: From Bachan Singh to Manoj
Over more than four decades, the Supreme Court has built a set of rules on how a court must decide whether to give the death penalty. This is the idea of "due process" (a fair procedure) at the sentencing stage, not just at the trial stage.
In Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980), the Court upheld the death penalty as constitutional, but said it can be given only in the "rarest of rare" cases, and only after the judge weighs factors against the accused (aggravating) and in favour of the accused (mitigating).
In Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022), the Court gave practical guidelines: before giving a death sentence, the trial court must collect a psychiatric and psychological evaluation, a jail conduct report and details of the accused's background.
Studies have found that many trial courts still do not follow these guidelines. In Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. Union of India (August 2025), the Court held that a death sentence can be reopened through an Article 32 petition if the Manoj safeguards were not followed.
A Constitution Bench reference on a uniform, separate sentencing hearing in death penalty cases is still pending before the Supreme Court.
The "Rarest of Rare" Doctrine: Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980)
The "rarest of rare" doctrine is the rule that decides when an Indian court may give the death penalty. It says that for murder, life imprisonment is the normal punishment and death is a rare exception. A judge may choose death only when the case is so extreme that no other punishment is enough, and the possibility of reforming the person is ruled out. The rule comes from the Supreme Court's 1980 judgment in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab.
The news traces how the Supreme Court turned the bare idea of "rarest of rare" from Bachan Singh into a working procedure through Manoj. Its focus on due process at sentencing, and on trial courts that still skip mitigation reports, is the central Mains debate around this doctrine.
Constitutional Pardoning Powers: Articles 72 and 161
The pardoning power is the power of the President (under Article 72) and the Governor of a state (under Article 161) to forgive a convict, reduce a punishment or change it to a lighter one, even after the courts have given their final decision. It is the last door open to a person sentenced to death. This power belongs to the executive (the government side), not to the courts.
The due process the Supreme Court built for death sentences does not end with the courts. After the last appeal, the mercy petition under Articles 72 and 161 is the final safeguard, and the courts have shaped it too, by allowing review of arbitrary decisions and treating long delay as a reason to commute.
- Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980): "rarest of rare" doctrine; 4:1 Constitution Bench
- Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022): mandatory mitigation reports (psychiatric, psychological, jail conduct, probation)
- Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. Union of India (25 August 2025): Article 32 can reopen sentencing where Manoj not followed
- Trial courts gave 128 death sentences in 2025; Supreme Court confirmed none in 2023 to 2025
- Last executions in India: 20 March 2020
- Law Commission 262nd Report (2015): abolish death penalty except for terrorism-related offences and waging war
- Special reasons for death: Section 393(3) BNSS (earlier Section 354(3) CrPC)
- High Court confirmation of death sentence: Section 407 BNSS (earlier Section 366 CrPC)
- Mercy petitions: Article 72 (President), Article 161 (Governor); BNSS Section 472