The Indian Constitution, under Article 21, guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. While it does not explicitly prohibit the death penalty, the Supreme Court has upheld its constitutionality, provided it is imposed through due process of law and in the "rarest of rare" cases. The death penalty's moral justification is a complex issue with arguments for and against its use as a form of punishment.

The death penalty can be considered morally justified in India based on the principle of retribution, while constitutionally, it is permissible under Article 21 as long as it is applied according to a procedure established by law. This means that while the death penalty is a constitutionally valid punishment, it must be imposed through a fair legal process and is reserved for the "rarest of rare" cases.

The death penalty can be constitutionally justified under Article 21, as the Supreme Court has held that deprivation of life is permissible if done according to a fair, just, and reasonable procedure established by law, and only in the "rarest of rare" cases. Morally, however, its justification remains contentious—while some argue it serves as deterrence and retribution for heinous crimes, others contend it is inherently cruel and incompatible with the right to life and human dignity. Thus, while constitutionally valid in India, its moral legitimacy is still widely debated.