Is Same Day Sentencing In Death Penalty Cases Proper? Supreme Court To Hear The Matter In January 2024

The Supreme Court today (22.11.2023) decided to list in January 2024 the petitions pertaining to whether same-day sentencing could be permissible in the cases of capital punishment or death penalty. The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud stated that the registry shall notify the exact date of hearing in the matter in January 2024. 

It may be recalled that earlier, a bench comprising the then CJI UU Lalit, Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia had noted that there were conflicting judgments regarding the grant of hearing to an accused before imposing death sentence on him. Taking into account the lack of a uniform framework in regard of separate hearings in death penalty matters, the Supreme Court had initiated a suo moto petition and referred the same to a 5-judge bench. 

Today, the court appointed Ms Vidhi Thakkar, counsel assisting Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave (amicus curiae) as the nodal counsel in the matter and directed for all compilations to be submitted by December 15, 2023. 

Charting out the scope of the proceedings, Senior Advocate Dave, underlined the reason behind the initiation of the suo moto proceedings. He stated that the issue arose after no psychological evaluation was made of the detenu in a large number of death sentence cases. He added–

"So your lordships were then confronted with various three-judge bench decisions which provided for same day sentencing. And there are various decisions of equal strength on the opposite side which do not say that it cannot be resorted to."

Dave submitted that if same day sentencing was made permissible in death penalty cases, there would no scope for psychological evaluation or for any mitigation circumstances to be put forth by the detenu or the convict at the stage of the sentencing. He asserted–

"Same day sentencing in capital punishment cases cannot be permitted. It is the duty upon the court to call for mitigation circumstances, not only from the accused but it can also call from the jail authorities, so to know the mental framework and the physical incapacitation of the person."

The counsel for Project 39A, which is an intervenor in the matter, argued that apart from the issue of time gap in the same day sentences, mitigation as an integral component of the right to a fair trial had to also be taken into consideration. Thus, he stated that the right to counsel needed to encompass the right of mitigation assistance to a convict before sentencing him to death penalty. He argued–

"If mitigation is an essential part of the right to defence, the right to fair trial through counsel would also incorporate appropriate mitigation assistance. It is only then the fair trial would be insured. Even the right to counsel would conceivably have to encompass mitigation aspect. Therefore, we have also place a mitigation model."

It may be noted that in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, the court, in its majority judgment, had upheld the constitutionality of the death sentence, on the condition that it could be imposed in the "rarest of rare" cases. The majority in Bachan Singh also took note of the fact that convicts would be afforded a separate hearing, to urge why capital sentence ought not to be resorted to. The judgment had further noted the Law Commission's observation that courts should "give the party or parties concerned an opportunity of producing evidence or material relating to the various factors bearing on the question of sentence." 

The present suo motu petition was initiated noticing the lack of a uniform framework in regard of separate hearings in death penalty matters. It took into account the case of Manoj & Ors. v. State of Madhya, where the apprehensions relating to the absence of such a framework was recorded and the importance of a separate hearing and the necessity of background analysis of the accused, was highlighted. In this case, it was suggested that the social milieu, the age, educational levels, whether the convict had faced trauma earlier in life, family circumstances, psychological evaluation of a convict and post-conviction conduct, were relevant factors at the time of considering whether the death penalty ought to be imposed upon the accused.

Case Title: In Re: Framing Guidelines Regarding Potential Mitigating Circumstances To Be Considered While Imposing Death Sentence SMW(Crl) No. 1/2022 PIL-W

Click Here To Read/Download Order