Introduction

A recent report revealing that the Supreme Court of India has not confirmed a single death sentence in the last three years marks a significant moment in India’s capital punishment jurisprudence. While the death penalty remains on the statute book, the apex court’s approach indicates growing judicial restraint and deep discomfort with irreversible punishment in a system marked by investigative and procedural flaws. This widening gap between lower courts and higher judiciary raises fundamental questions about the future of the death penalty in India.

Lower Courts vs Higher Judiciary

The data shows a striking divergence between sentencing trends at different judicial levels.

• Between 2016 and 2025, Sessions Courts awarded around 1,310 death sentences.

• High Courts confirmed only a small fraction of these sentences.

• A large number of cases resulted in Acquittals, Commutation to life imprisonment

• In 2025 alone, Sessions Courts sentenced 128 persons to death, despite the consistent scepticism shown by appellate courts.

This pattern suggests that death sentences are often imposed at the trial stage, only to be reversed or diluted after closer judicial scrutiny.

Acquittals and Commutations: A Warning Signal

The year 2025 stands out for another reason.

• The Supreme Court acquitted 10 death row prisoners, the highest such number in a decade.

• High rates of acquittal and commutation point to Serious investigative lapses, Poor-quality evidence, Inadequate legal representation at trial stage

• These outcomes expose a disturbing reality:

  • Many individuals sentenced to death by lower courts should never have been convicted in the first place.

In a punishment system where errors are frequent, the irreversible nature of the death penalty becomes ethically and constitutionally troubling.

An Emerging Judicial Trend: Life Without Remission

Rather than confirming death sentences, higher courts are increasingly turning to life imprisonment without remission.

• This option is seen as a way to address public demand for severe punishment in heinous crimes and without crossing the moral and constitutional threshold of execution

• It reflects a judicial attempt to balance retribution and deterrence, with the right to life and the risk of irreversible error

This trend further underscores the judiciary’s unease with capital punishment, even in “rarest of rare” cases.

Should the Death Penalty Be Retained?

The data has revived the long-standing debate on whether India should continue with capital punishment.

Arguments in Favour of Retaining the Death Penalty

Supporters of the death penalty advance several arguments:

• Deterrence: It is believed to deter heinous crimes such as terrorism, rape-murder, and mass killings, sending a message of zero tolerance.

• Retributive justice: For the “rarest of rare” crimes, capital punishment is viewed as morally proportionate and as providing closure to victims’ families.

• National security: Considered necessary in cases involving terrorism or waging war against the State.

• Public confidence: Retention of the death penalty is often seen as reinforcing public faith in the criminal justice system in extreme cases.

These arguments are largely rooted in public sentiment and perceptions of justice.

Arguments Against the Death Penalty

Opposition to capital punishment draws strength from both data and constitutional principles.

• Risk of wrongful conviction: High acquittal and commutation rates show that judicial errors are not hypothetical. Once executed, such errors cannot be remedied.

• Arbitrary and unequal application:Sentencing outcomes often depend on Quality of legal representation, Socio-economic background of the accuse

• No proven deterrent effect: Global empirical studies show no conclusive evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than life imprisonment.

• Violation of human dignity: Evolving interpretation of Article 21 increasingly emphasises dignity, even in punishment.

• Death row syndrome: Prolonged incarceration under the shadow of execution amounts to psychological torture.

• International trend: A majority of countries have abolished or stopped using the death penalty.

• Unsafe in Indian conditions: Weak investigations, coercive policing practices, and inadequate legal aid make capital punishment especially dangerous in India.

What the Supreme Court’s Stance Really Means

The Supreme Court’s refusal to uphold death sentences over three years does not amount to formal abolition. However, it sends a clear signal:

• The judiciary recognises:

  • Structural weaknesses in policing and prosecution

  • High risk of irreversible injustice

• The “rarest of rare” doctrine is being applied:

  • With extreme caution

  • Almost approaching a de facto moratorium

In effect, while lower courts continue to award death sentences, the apex court is acting as a constitutional brake.

Conclusion

The fact that the Supreme Court has not confirmed a single death sentence in three years is not an accident—it is a reflection of deep judicial unease with capital punishment in a flawed criminal justice system. The widening gap between trial courts and appellate courts highlights systemic problems in investigation, prosecution, and legal aid. While public outrage over heinous crimes is understandable, justice cannot be built on irreversible punishment amid high error rates. The emerging judicial preference for life imprisonment without remission suggests that India may be moving, cautiously and incrementally, towards limiting—and perhaps eventually ending—the use of the death penalty.