Rarest of Rare Doctrine

Source: TH

Context: The Kolkata R.G. Kar Medical College case and the Sharon murder case led to contrasting judgments on the death penalty, reigniting debates on the application of the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine in India.

About Rarest of Rare Doctrine:

• What is the ‘Rarest of Rare’ Doctrine?

• The ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine governs the imposition of the death penalty in India. It mandates that capital punishment should only be awarded in exceptional cases where the crime shocks the collective conscience of society. The doctrine ensures that the death penalty remains the exception rather than the rule, upholding constitutional safeguards.

• The ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine governs the imposition of the death penalty in India.

• It mandates that capital punishment should only be awarded in exceptional cases where the crime shocks the collective conscience of society.

• The doctrine ensures that the death penalty remains the exception rather than the rule, upholding constitutional safeguards.

• Origin of the Doctrine:

• Jagmohan Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (1972): Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty, stating it does not violate Articles 14, 19, and 21. No clear guidelines on when the death penalty should be applied, leaving it to judicial discretion. Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab (1980): Established the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine, stating that capital punishment should be given only in exceptional cases. The Court did not define ‘rarest of rare’, leading to ambiguity.

• Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty, stating it does not violate Articles 14, 19, and 21.

• No clear guidelines on when the death penalty should be applied, leaving it to judicial discretion.

• Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab (1980): Established the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine, stating that capital punishment should be given only in exceptional cases. The Court did not define ‘rarest of rare’, leading to ambiguity.

• Established the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine, stating that capital punishment should be given only in exceptional cases.

• The Court did not define ‘rarest of rare’, leading to ambiguity.

• Supreme Court’s Framework on ‘Rarest of Rare’:

• Machhi Singh vs. State of Punjab (1983): The Court provided five broad categories where the death penalty may be justified: Manner of Crime: Brutal, gruesome, or exceptionally heinous killings. Motive of Crime: When the motive reveals extreme moral depravity or inhumanity. Impact on Society: Murders that create widespread social outrage, such as hate crimes. Magnitude of the Crime: Multiple murders or mass killings. Victim’s Vulnerability: When the victim is a child, woman, elderly, or disabled person.

• Manner of Crime: Brutal, gruesome, or exceptionally heinous killings.

• Motive of Crime: When the motive reveals extreme moral depravity or inhumanity.

• Impact on Society: Murders that create widespread social outrage, such as hate crimes.

• Magnitude of the Crime: Multiple murders or mass killings.

• Victim’s Vulnerability: When the victim is a child, woman, elderly, or disabled person.

• Mithu vs. State of Punjab (1983):

• Struck down Section 303 IPC, which prescribed a mandatory death penalty for convicts already serving a life sentence.

• Ruled that the death penalty must always be discretionary.