“[The] death penalty is irrevocable; it cannot be recalled. It extinguishes the flame of life forever…It is by reason of its cold and cruel finality that death penalty is qualitatively different from all other forms of punishment.”2
-P. N. Bhagwati, J.
Death penalty has undeniably become a topic of heated debate across the globe in contemporary era. The sentence of killing a person by virtue of judicious and discerning judicial opinion has raised plethora of questions upon the very nature of death penalty under legal framework. The timeless antiquity of death penalty and its precise utility under modern times with the garb of deterrence or retribution can be a topic of independent research. However, the way in which a criminal justice system operates the very life and death of an offender necessarily requires a revisit in order to cross section the actual foundation of death penalty under the law books. The fate of death sentence has been predominantly shaped by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India under the landmark precedent of Bachan Singh3 while giving birth to the doctrine of rarest of rare. However, the application of the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine suffered from an inherent divergence pertaining to its inconsistent usage. The judiciary has itself made it an eternal paradox that, the underpinnings laid down under Bachan Singh’s case left so behind and at present it has become an atlas task to summarise the fundamental foundations of this doctrines. During the passage of time, various sub factors and patterns got originated which have subsided and deviated the core ethos of rarest of rare doctrine, Thus, in order to understand the sentencing of death penalty in India, there warrants a deep dive into the underpinnings of rarest of rare doctrine. Present article attempts to address the paradox transpired within judicial precedents under cases of capital punishment and endeavours to encapsulate the ethos laid by Apex Court for the same in a nutshell.
