An In-Depth Legal Analysis of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Its Constitutional Implications
Maitreyee Wadge
Introduction
India has historically engaged in heated debates about death penalty since it raises unamenable issues of justice, deterrence and human rights.Legislatively, murderers receiving life sentences were issuedmandatory capital punishments under Section 303of the Indian Penal Code, 1938 (IPC).
The Indian Supreme Court ruled in
Mithu v. State of Punjab (1983) that Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which required the death punishment for a future murder committed by a lifer, was unconstitutional (not void). The Court determined that this clause, which imposed a mandatory death penalty without taking into account the convict’s unique circumstances, violated the right to life protected by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. This was perceived to be capricious and incompatible with the concepts of justice and fairness.
Section 303’s unconstitutionality was noteworthy because it eliminated a harsh, universal punishment and permitted judges to use their discretion to decide on suitable penalties based on the particulars of each case.
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), shores up the discussion of required death sentences and the larger moral and legal issues surrounding the death penalty. It has advocated and reintroduced a similar provision for mandatory death sentences, thus legislatively overruling the foundational precedent built by the Supreme Court in the Mithu verdict.
Historical Context of Section 303 IPC.
Section 303of IPC stated
“Whoever being under sentence of imprisonment of life commits murder, shall be punished with death”
With an endeavour to discourage people serving life terms from committing new crimes, Section 303 of the IPC stipulates that a lifer who commits murder post-conviction shall face the death penalty. This clause was justified by the belief that merely threatening life in jail would not be enough to discourage repeat offenders. But this
modus operandi to deterrence crimes was criticised for being strict, unfair, and unjust. Serious questions regarding the fairness and justice of the death penalty’s application were becoming apparent as Section 303 was universally applicable without reckoning the merits of a case. This strict clause, according to critics, ignored mitigating circumstances like the convict’s history or the particulars of the second offence.
Mithu v. State of Punjab: The Supreme Court’s Rationale
The Supreme Court considered whether Section 303 IPC was constitutional in Mithu v. State of Punjab (1983). The Court determined that the clause violated the Indian Constitution’s Articles 14 and 21.
- Article 14 (Right to Equality): The Supreme Court held that Section 303 IPC infringed against the protection of Article 14’s right to equality. Due to the required character of the provision, all individuals found guilty under this clause faced an automatic death sentence, regardless of their unique circumstances. The idea of equality before the law was undermined by the arbitrary and unfair treatment that followed from this lack of judicial discretion.
- Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty): The Court also determined that Section 303 violated Article 21, which protects these rights. The clause denied prisoners the chance to offer mitigating circumstances that might support a lower sentence by imposing a mandatory death sentence. This went against the values outlined in Article 21 by removing the chance of a fair trial and a just punishment.
The Mithu ruling brought to light the need for a judicial system that supports personalised justice and makes sure that sentences are appropriate for the offence committed as well as the circumstances surrounding the offender.
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita’s revival
Mandatory death sentences for murder committed by life convicts have been reinstated in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) under Section 104 which states,
“
Whoever, being under sentence of imprisonment for life, commits murder, shall be punished with death or with imprisonment for life, which shall mean the remainder of that person’s natural life”
The new criminal code was meant to replace the IPC in order to do away with the colonial legacy and instil a sense of justice-oriented criminal jurisprudence rather than punishment-oriented criminal law. However, significant legal and moral questions are brought up by this resurgence, especially in light of earlier decisions made by the Supreme Court.
Comparing the BNS provisions for mandatory death sentences for life in prison terms for murder to Section 303 IPC, the Supreme Court has earlier overturned a similar approach. Since judges are deprived of the authority to take mitigating circumstances into account under these clauses, there may be constitutional issues akin to those with Section 303.
Concerns about Ethics and Jurisprudence
A number of important legal and moral concerns are raised by the BNS’s reinstatement of obligatory death sentences.
The theory known as “Rarest of Rare”:
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab(1980) established the “rarest of rare” theory, which limits the use of the death sentence to the most severe circumstances in which life in prison is not adequate. The following are the main criteria for identifying such cases:
- Very heinous nature of the crime: Crimes involving great cruelty or brutality.
- Manner of commission: The way the offence was committed, like using excessive force.
- Impact on society: Crimes that cause a great deal of pain or terror.
- Background of the criminal: Violent tendencies or past convictions.
- Mitigating circumstances: Elements such as the past or mental health of the accused.
Because of these considerations, the death sentence is only applied in the most extraordinary circumstances, emphasising the importance of judicial discretion. This study may be constrained by the BNS provisions’ mandatory character.
Ethical Debates:
According to the 262
nd report by the Law Commission of India, titled “the Death Penalty” 2015 submitted that death penalty has not been established to have a deterrent impact and is not more successful than life sentences at preventing horrific crimes. International organisations, including as the UN Human Rights Council and Amnesty International, have reported that there is insufficient evidence to sustain death penalty as a deterrent. Further highlighting disparities in sentencing, a study from Delhi’s National Law University demonstrates how marginalised groups are subjected to higher penalties. This information emphasises the moral and practical issues with the death sentence and backs the growing calls for its abolition around the world.
International Views:
Given the worldwide movement against the death penalty, India’s reputation abroad may suffer if it were to reinstate the mandatory death penalty. More than 110 nations have abolished the death penalty, while others only use it in the direst circumstances. Only a select few, such as Saudi Arabia, China, and Iran, continue to have high execution rates, frequently drawing criticism from global human rights organisations like Amnesty International.
India’s decision could have a severe impact on its reputation in human rights forums, diplomatic ties, and trade with countries that value moral behaviour. It could also cause tensions with allies in the Americas and Europe who reject the death sentence.
Social and Legal Consequences
Reintroducing obligatory death sentences under the BNS will have a variety of socio-legal effects.
Judicial Reactions: In light of its earlier decisions about the unconstitutionality of obligatory death sentences, the Supreme Court may be challenged to the BNS requirements. The Court’s stance on the BNS will have a significant impact on whether or not these regulations are upheld.
Effect on the Legal System:The legal system may experience severe strain if mandatory death sentences proliferate. A change like this would probably result in more appeals, with more cases taking longer to resolve as defendants exhaust all other appeal channels, potentially all the way to the Supreme Court. This could result in additional backlogs and put a great deal of strain on already overworked courts. A rise in obligatory death sentences would also result in more people serving life sentences or awaiting execution, which would raise incarceration rates and perhaps cause prison congestion. The wider societal ramifications of this might likewise impact the resources allotted to the legal system, impacting legislative modifications and jail administration.
Additionally, there are serious ethical and legal concerns with the retroactive application of legislation changes, such as the reinstatement or reintroduction of heavier sanctions through the BNS (or other methods). Accused individuals who were on trial even before these amendments were passed would essentially be held accountable for their deeds before the statute was revived if these provisions were applied to them. Article 20(1) of the Indian Constitution, which forbids retroactive criminal legislation and shields people from harsher penalties than those stipulated at the time of the offence, is violated by this. A fundamental right guaranteed by Article 20(1) is that people are not subject to ex post facto regulations that enhance penalty retrospectively.
Human Rights Concerns: Human rights organisations may become more vigilant in their monitoring of the resurgence of obligatory death sentences. Calls for additional reforms or their elimination may arise from worries about efficacy and fairness.
Legislative and Policy Debates: This action may rekindle conversations about the morality and effectiveness of the death penalty in India, which has the potential to catalyse talks about sentencing guidelines and criminal justice reform.
Conclusion
A major change in India’s stance on the death penalty may be seen in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which reinstates the mandatory death sentence. Although this action aims to address serious crimes and modernise the criminal justice system, it also presents important legal, moral, and human rights issues. The future of the death penalty in India will be significantly shaped by how these rules align with constitutional values and prior court decisions. It is crucial to strike a balance between the enforceability and justiciabilityof fundamental rights and the objectives of justice and deterrence as the discussion proceeds.This brings in conflict the ethicality and practicality of criminal justice system in India.
Given that both sides have good reasons for and against it, the reinstatement of the death sentence in BNS has generated discussion. Others oppose the modification, believing it to be unduly harsh and incompatible with the values of the Indian legal system, while others see it as necessary, stating that some criminals should have been executed but had previously merely been sentenced to life in prison. The fairness and severity of this adjustment, which was intended to handle serious cases more severely, have thus been the subject of much debate.
