Recent judicial rulings in India have reignited debates about the fairness and consistency of capital punishment. In two noted cases, Greeshma S.S., a 24- year-old woman, convicted of poisoning her partner Sharon Raj, was sentenced to death in Kerala, while Sanjay Roy, guilty of the brutal rape and murder of a junior doctor in Kolkata, received life imprisonment. These contrasting outcomes highlight the inconsistencies in the application of the death penalty, raising profound questions about its role in delivering justice and its alignment with the principles of equity and fairness in a modern legal framework. The principle of justice delivery hinges on consistency, fairness, and proportionality. Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo once wrote, “Justice is not to be taken by storm.

She is to be wooed by slow advances.” But the Indian judicial system, particularly when it comes to the death penalty, appears more as a judicial lottery than a paragon of impartiality. The ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine, established in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980), aimed to reserve the death penalty for crimes so heinous that they shock the collective conscience of society. Advocates assert that it acts as a deterrent, delivers justice proportionate to the severity of the crime, and offers closure to victims’ families by addressing the enormity of their loss. However, the doctrine’s subjective interpretation allows for wide judicial discretion, leading to inconsistent and often unpredictable outcomes, undermining its intended purpose of ensuring equitable justice. Greeshma’s act was undeniably calculated and coldhearted.

Advertisement

However, how society and the judiciary deemed her crime more reprehensible than that of Sanjay Roy reflects an undercurrent of gendered and situational biases. Greeshma’s actions were viewed as an intimate betrayal that perhaps affronts the moral fabric of trust. In contrast, Sanjay’s crime ~ despite being monstrous-might have been treated with more detachment because of structural desensitisation to sexual violence in India. This divergence demonstrates how societal trends and public sentiment often seep into judicial reasoning, undermining objectivity. Proponents of capital punishment claim it deters crime and satisfies society’s retributive instincts.

However, Jeremy Bentham, the father of utilitarianism, argued that punishment should be no harsher than necessary to achieve its purpose. Empirical evidence worldwide fails to substantiate the death penalty’s deterrent effect. Nations like Canada and the United Kingdom, which have abolished it, report crime rates comparable to or lower than countries like the United States, where it persists under increasingly restricted and scrutinized application. From a moral perspective, the death penalty presents an irreconcilable paradox: can the state, a custodian of life and liberty, justifiably take life in the name of justice? Gandhi famously said, “An eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind.”

The retributive framework underlying capital punishment often perpetuates cycles of violence rather than breaking them. By sanctioning the ultimate punishment, the state risks endorsing vengeance rather than fostering an ethos of rehabilitation and reform. Globally, the trend is shifting toward abolition, but India remains retentionist, often justifying its stance by citing cultural and societal differences. However, if the essence of justice is universal, India must critically examine why it continues to uphold a practice that much of the world, except for countries like China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, has largely abandoned. Judicial fallibility is another significant concern.

In a system where convictions are sometimes compromised by procedural lapses and insufficient evidence, the risk of wrongful execution ~ though rare ~ remains a deeply troubling reality. In the past, the Supreme Court has overturned death sentences due to errors in lower courts, demonstrating that even the judiciary is not immune to mistakes. Justice P.N. Bhagwati, a former Chief Justice of India, candidly admitted, “The death penalty in its actual operation is discriminatory, for it strikes mostly against the poor and deprived.” Abolitionists contend that life imprisonment without parole is a more humane and effective alternative to the death penalty.

It ensures public safety while preserving the possibility of reform, aligning with the ethical and rehabilitative goals of justice. Norway’s Scandinavian approach exemplifies this philosophy, prioritizing rehabilitation even for the most egregious crimes. Anders Breivik, responsible for the 2011 mass killings, received 21 years of preventive detention, extendable indefinitely if deemed a continued thre – at. This model safeguards society without compromising the moral foundations of justice. The psychological toll of the death penalty on those involved in its implementation is significant. Executioners often suffer from severe mental health issues, burdened by the moral weight of their actions. Judges who issue death sentences also report emotional distress and doubt. This psychological burden highlights the urgent need for alternatives that avoid the irreversible consequences of taking a life.

A meaningful reform of India’s justice delivery system demands introspection and bold action. The judiciary must work on the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine to minimize discretion and ambiguity. Establishing clear, objective guidelines for capital punishment would ensure greater uniformity in sentencing. Moreover, strengthening the legal aid system is crucial to safeguarding the rights of economically disadvantaged defendants, ensuring that justice is not skewed in favour of the privileged. Public discourse must also evolve beyond the binaries of life and death. Justice is not solely about punishment but also about prevention and rehabilitation. Investing in education, social welfare, and policing can address the root causes of crime, reducing reliance on punitive measures. Importantly, punishments must be meant to achieve penological goals.

The cases of Greeshma, Sanjay Roy et cetera compel us to confront uncomfortable truths about the nature of justice in India. Is it fair, consistent, and equitable? Does it uphold the dignity of all individuals, or does it bend to societal pressures, prejudices and structural inequalities? Until these questions are addressed, capital punishment will remain a blemish on the nation’s conscience ~ a relic of retributive justice that has little place in progressive perspectives. In the words of Albert Camus, “Capital punishment is the most premeditated of murders.” It is time for India to transcend this premeditation and reimagine justice as a force that heals, reforms, and uplifts, rather than one that condemns and destroys. The judiciary must confront its institutional challenges and reform the justice delivery system to genuinely embody the ideals enshrined in our Constitution and the principles of humanity

(The writer is a policy analyst, columnist and the author of The Essential)