Justice Dipankar Datta of the Supreme Court has orally questioned the Court’s practice on death penalty commutations, remarking in a remission matter that the Court’s forgiving nature has to come to an end somewhere.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: Hearing a remission matter involving a convict in a murder case on Thursday (October 8), Justice Dipankar Datta of the Supreme Court made oral remarks on the Court’s past commutation of death sentences to life imprisonment, saying that the Court would have to draw a line at some point [Remission Matter Involving A Murder Convict].
The Bench comprised Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu. The remarks were made orally during the hearing. They are not a ruling or a direction, and no order on the merits of the remission plea has been made available.
What Justice Datta said
Justice Datta observed that the “rarest of rare” doctrine was framed at a time when murders were rare, which he said is no longer the position. Referring to a past case in which a death sentence was commuted, he asked those present to hear its facts: a father, convicted of a grave offence against his elder daughter, was later released on parole and is alleged to have killed his wife in front of their younger child. The death sentence in that case, resting on the younger child’s testimony, was commuted to life imprisonment because he was not found to have killed that child. The identities of those involved are not reproduced here.
That is why, we say, our forgiving nature has to come to an end somewhere.
The wider remark
Justice Datta linked the Court’s approach to commutations with the present crime situation in the country, remarking that the Court’s forgiving nature is part of why India faces its present state of crime. These were observations made from the Bench during a hearing, and no finding or direction has been recorded on that point.
What is not on record
The convict’s name, the State concerned and the arguments of counsel in the remission matter have not been made available. The remarks do not decide the remission plea, and the convict’s contentions are yet to be recorded. Commutations by the Court have so far been decided on the facts of individual cases, including the nature of the crime, the prospect of reform and, in some matters, delay in deciding mercy petitions.
Why the remarks matter
Oral observations from the Bench are not binding precedent, and the Court’s reasoned judgments on the “rarest of rare” doctrine and on commutation continue to govern. The remarks nonetheless show a judge’s concern about how commutations are viewed, in a week when other death sentence commutation matters are before the Court. The Court has expressed no view on the merits of the remission plea, and any outcome will depend on the order eventually passed.
Matter: Remission matter involving a murder convict (case title and number not available)
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu, Supreme Court of India
Date of hearing: October 8, 2026
Appearances: Not available
Help for children in distress: CHILDLINE 1098 (24×7, free).
