The Supreme Court’s review the provision in the SC/ST Act mandating capital punishment for false and fabricated evidence has sparked a crucial legal debate. As the court considers the constitutional validity of this provision, it will carefully assess its compatibility with the “rarest-of-rare” standard established for capital punishment.
NEW DELHI: (On 14th May): The Supreme Court decided to examine the legality of a provision within the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. This provision mandates the imposition of capital punishment on individuals who provide false and fabricated evidence leading to the conviction, sentencing, and execution of a member belonging to the SC/ST community.
READ ALSO: Supreme Court to Deliberate on Same-Day Sentencing in Death Penalty Cases in January 2024
The court’s decision to review this rarely utilized provision comes after a challenge was filed, arguing that it contradicts the “rarest-of-rare” benchmark established by the Supreme Court for capital punishment.
During the hearing, advocate Rishi Malhotra, the petitioner in the public interest litigation (PIL), brought to the attention of the bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and K V Viswanathan, the specific provision in question: Section 3(2)(i) of the SC/ST Act.
Background:
The challenge raised concerns about the provision’s compatibility with the guidelines set in the Bachan Singh case of May 9, 1980. In this landmark ruling, a five-judge bench declared that the death penalty should only be imposed in “rarest of rare” murder cases involving extreme brutality. The court emphasized that while life imprisonment is generally the norm for murder convictions, capital punishment should be reserved as an exceptional measure, used only in extremely rare cases where no other viable alternative exists.
This provision states
if an innocent member of the SC/ST community is “convicted and executed due to such false or fabricated evidence, the person who provides or fabricates such false evidence shall be punished with death.”
Malhotra highlighted the previous ruling in the Mithu vs Punjab case of 1983, where a five-judge bench struck down Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code. This section imposed a mandatory death sentence on a person who committed murder while serving a life sentence for another murder.
Mithu vs Punjab case of 1983
The Supreme Court in Mithu v. State of Punjab examined the constitutional validity of Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code, which mandated the death penalty for prisoners serving a life sentence if they committed murder while imprisoned.
The Court held that Section 303 violated Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution as it deprived judges of their discretion in sentencing. By making the death penalty mandatory, Section 303 arbitrarily singled out a certain class of convicts for harsher punishment without any rational criteria. This violated the right to equality under Article 14.
Further, the Court ruled that the mandatory death penalty impaired the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21. A provision that inflicts the death penalty without considering individual circumstances and mitigating factors fails to meet the standards of just, fair and reasonable procedure.
The judgment’s implications were far-reaching. First, it asserted the judiciary’s power to review legislative provisions and strike down unconstitutional laws. Second, it expanded the scope of Article 21 and established that the right to life entails due process in depriving personal liberty, even for punishment.
By declaring capital punishment discretionary rather than mandatory, the Court enabled judges to consider aggravating and mitigating factors while sentencing. This allowed for a case-by-case approach based on the facts and circumstances. The judgment thus had a humanizing effect on the criminal justice system.
The bench had declared it unconstitutional, applying the principles outlined in the Bachan Singh judgment.
“In the Bachan Singh case on May 9, 1980, a five-judge Supreme Court bench ruled that courts could impose the death penalty only in ‘rarest of rare’ murder cases characterized by extreme brutality. The Supreme Court emphasized that ‘…for those convicted of murder, life imprisonment is generally the norm, and the death sentence is an exceptional measure…respect for the sanctity of human life implies refraining from taking a life through legal means. This should be done only in extremely rare cases when no other option is unequivocally viable.'”
Justice Kant acknowledged that the SC/ST Act was not an archaic colonial law but was enacted by Parliament in 1989. Justice Viswanathan emphasized that life imprisonment is the general rule, with capital punishment being an exception. Malhotra argued that the “rarest of rare” jurisprudence, as established in the Bachan Singh case, has evolved over the years.
The Supreme Court has made the death penalty rare by granting discretion to the judiciary to determine appropriate punishment for heinous murders, taking into account various factors such as the nature of the crime, the accused, the circumstances, and the potential for rehabilitation.
The Attorney General, R Venkataramani, informed the court about the reforms introduced in the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), and Evidence Act. He expressed his intention to consult with the government regarding the implementation of reforms in other penal laws. The bench agreed that such an approach would be beneficial and scheduled the matter for a hearing in July.
READ ALSO: Man Receives Death Penalty for Double Murder Amid Property Feud
Interestingly, when questioned, both the Attorney General and Malhotra confirmed that no cases have been found where individuals have received the death penalty under Section 3(2)(i) of the SC/ST Act.
