Published Paper Details:

The death penalty remains one of the most debated aspects of criminal jurisprudence in India, raising profound constitutional, legal, and human rights concerns. This study critically examines the constitutional validity of capital punishment under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. It traces the evolution of judicial interpretation from Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P. to Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, which laid down the "rarest of rare" doctrine, and explores the subsequent jurisprudential refinements ensuring procedural safeguards. The research highlights key issues such as judicial inconsistencies in sentencing, socio-economic and caste-based disparities, wrongful convictions, and the psychological impact of death row incarceration. Comparative analysis with jurisdictions like the UK, US, and EU provides insights into global abolitionist trends and their influence on Indian legal thought. The study also delves into the role of executive clemency under Articles 72 and 161, revealing systemic delays and the need for procedural reforms. Further, the dissertation proposes life imprisonment without parole and restorative justice as viable alternatives to capital punishment, emphasizing the need for uniform sentencing policies and judicial accountability. The study concludes that while India retains the death penalty, evolving constitutional morality, international human rights obligations, and judicial developments signal a gradual shift toward more humane, consistent, and reformative approaches to justice.