Judicial Discretion and the Death Penalty: Revisiting Bachan Singh in the Context of India and the U.S.

Abstract

Judicial discretion in death penalty adjudication is inextricably linked with constitutional mandates, moral challenges, and international human rights norms. This study aims to undertake a critical analysis of the path of such discretion in the Indian legal tradition, particularly in the context of the jurisprudential shift indicated by Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980), which articulated the "rarest of rare" doctrine as a bulwark against arbitrary capital punishment. While the said judgment sought to establish principled checks, subsequent judicial perceptions have revealed contradictions, demonstrating the continuity of tension between normative principles and real adjudication. Employing a doctrinal research methodology, the study examines the theoretical underpinnings and functional efficacy of the Bachan Singh model. It supplements it with an empirical review of trial court sentencing practices. It also identifies procedural deficits that impede the doctrine's consistent application, such as incoherent sentencing and neglecting to consider extenuating factors appropriately. Moreover, with a comparative analysis of the capital sentencing system in the United States characterized by statutory limitations and jury participation—the study draws implications regarding the mechanisms through which controlled discretion can enhance transparency and reduce arbitrariness This paper finally calls for reviewing India's sentencing policy to include greater judicial accountability, implementation consistency, and compatibility with prevailing human rights standards. This paper contends that reforms are necessary to preserve the constitutional doctrine of substantive due process in capital cases.