The death penalty in India is constitutionally valid under Article 21, which guarantees the right to life. and personal liberty However, it can be taken away by a fair, just, and reasonable according to the procedure established by law. Here are certain landmark judgements of death penalty in india_

1.Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P. (1973): The Supreme Court upheld the death penalty, saying it did not violate Article 21 as long as it followed proper legal procedure.

2.Rajendra Prasad v. State of U.P. (1979): The Court emphasized that the death penalty should only be given in the rarest of rare cases.

3. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980): Confirmed the “rarest of rare” doctrine, requiring judges to balance aggravating and mitigating circumstances before awarding the death penalty.

4. Mithu v. State of Punjab (1983): Struck down the mandatory death penalty under Section 303 IPC as unconstitutional, reinforcing that courts must use discretion.

5.Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983): Clarified that the “rarest of rare” principle must be applied cautiously, ensuring the death penalty is not awarded arbitrarily.

Now we can say that the death penalty is constitutional but must be awarded sparingly and only after considering all factors, as guided by the rarest of rare doctrine.

The death penalty in India is constitutionally valid but is considered an exception to the general rule of life imprisonment. The Supreme Court, in *Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab* (1980), upheld its validity under Article 21 (right to life) but restricted its application to the “rarest of rare” cases to ensure it is not imposed arbitrarily. Subsequent judgments like *Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab* (1983) further clarified guidelines for its application. The Court balances the right to life with the need for justice and deterrence, maintaining the death penalty as constitutional but subject to strict judicial scrutiny.

The death penalty in India is constitutionally valid, but it is applied in the rarest of rare cases as per judicial guidelines. While Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, it also allows deprivation of life through due process of law. Indian courts have consistently upheld the constitutional validity of capital punishment but have limited its application through strict safeguards.
Constitutional Basis:
Article 21 – “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
This means the state can take life only through a fair, just, and reasonable procedure.
Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860—Provides for the death penalty for offenses such as murder (Section 302), waging war against the State (Section 121), and certain cases of rape (Sections 376A, 376AB, etc.).
Landmark Judgments:
1. Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P. (1973):
Issue: Whether the death penalty violates Articles 14, 19, and 21.
Held: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the death penalty, stating that it is awarded only after a fair trial and under the procedure established by law.
2. Rajendra Prasad v. State of U.P. (1979):
Justice Krishna Iyer argued that the death penalty should be awarded only when it is absolutely necessary and that human dignity must be a guiding principle.
Pushed the idea that the rarity and necessity of capital punishment must be judicially examined.
3. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980):
This is the leading case on the death penalty in India.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed the validity of the death penalty and laid down the “rarest of rare” doctrine:
“A death sentence should be imposed only when life imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed.”
The court stressed that aggravating and mitigating circumstances be considered before awarding the death penalty.
4. Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983):
This judgment clarified and expanded the “rarest of rare” test.
The Court identified categories where the death penalty might be justified: brutality, motives, anti-social nature of the crime, etc.
5. Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014):
Emphasized procedural fairness and held that undue delay in execution can be grounds for commuting the sentence to life imprisonment.
Recognized the right of death row convicts to humane treatment and legal remedies.
Recent Developments:
In cases like Mukul v. State of NCT of Delhi (2022) and others related to sexual offenses, courts have debated whether the death penalty serves as a deterrent.
There is increasing emphasis on rehabilitation, reform, and individualized sentencing.

The constitutional validity of the death penalty in India has been a subject of intense debate, with the Supreme Court examining its legality under the Indian Constitution, particularly in light of Articles 14 (equality before law), 19 (protection of certain freedoms), and 21 (right to life and personal liberty). The death penalty is provided under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and other statutes like the Indian Arms Act and anti-terrorism laws, but its application is guided by judicial principles to ensure it aligns with constitutional protections. Below is a discussion of its constitutional validity, supported by landmark judgments.

Constitutional Framework
Article 21: Guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, stating that no person shall be deprived of life or liberty except according to the procedure established by law. The death penalty is permissible only if it adheres to a fair, just, and reasonable procedure.
Article 14: Ensures equality before the law and equal protection of laws, requiring that the death penalty not be applied arbitrarily or disproportionately.
Article 19: Protects freedoms like speech and expression, which may be indirectly relevant in assessing the fairness of legal processes leading to the death penalty.
The Supreme Court has upheld the death penalty's constitutional validity but imposed stringent conditions to ensure its application is rare, fair, and non-arbitrary, evolving the "rarest of rare" doctrine to limit its use.

Landmark Judgments
Jagmohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1973):
Context: The appellant challenged the death penalty under Section 302, arguing it violated Articles 14, 19, and 21.
Ruling: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the death penalty. It held that the death penalty, when imposed through a procedure established by law, does not violate Article 21. The court emphasized that judges have discretion to choose between life imprisonment and death penalty based on case facts, ensuring no arbitrariness under Article 14.
Significance: This was the first major case affirming the death penalty's constitutionality, provided it follows due process.
Bachchan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980):
Context: This landmark case arose after amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in 1973, which required courts to provide special reasons for imposing the death penalty.
Ruling: A five-judge bench upheld the death penalty's validity but introduced the "rarest of rare" doctrine. The court ruled that the death penalty should be imposed only in exceptional cases where the crime is so heinous that life imprisonment is inadequate. It emphasized balancing aggravating and mitigating circumstances, ensuring the penalty is not arbitrary (Article 14) and respects the right to life (Article 21).
Significance: The "rarest of rare" doctrine became the cornerstone for death penalty cases, ensuring its application is restricted and individualized. The court also clarified that the death penalty does not inherently violate Article 19.
Mithu v. State of Punjab (1983):
Context: The case challenged Section 303 of the IPC, which mandated the death penalty for murder committed by a person undergoing life imprisonment.
Ruling: The Supreme Court struck down Section 303 as unconstitutional, finding it violated Articles 14 and 21. The mandatory nature of the penalty removed judicial discretion, making it arbitrary and unfair, as it did not allow for consideration of mitigating factors.
Significance: This judgment reinforced that mandatory death penalties are unconstitutional, emphasizing the need for individualized sentencing and judicial discretion.
Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983):
Context: This case sought to clarify the "rarest of rare" doctrine from Bachchan Singh.
Ruling: The court provided guidelines for identifying "rarest of rare" cases, including factors like the brutality of the crime, the motive, the vulnerability of the victim, and societal impact. It upheld the death penalty for heinous crimes like multiple murders but stressed adherence to Bachchan Singh principles.
Significance: The case refined the application of the death penalty, ensuring it is reserved for extraordinarily grave offenses while maintaining constitutional safeguards.
Santosh Kumar Bariha v. State of Odisha (2016):
Context: The appellant challenged the death penalty, arguing it was inconsistent with evolving standards of justice.
Ruling: The Supreme Court reaffirmed the "rarest of rare" doctrine and upheld the death penalty’s validity, but commuted the sentence to life imprisonment due to mitigating factors like the accused’s socio-economic background.
Significance: This case highlighted the court’s focus on balancing constitutional protections with the need for deterrence, emphasizing mitigation in sentencing.
Mukesh & Ors. v. State (Nirbhaya Case, 2017):
Context: The brutal gang rape and murder in Delhi led to death sentences for the accused, raising questions about the death penalty’s application.
Ruling: The Supreme Court upheld the death penalty, classifying the case as "rarest of rare" due to the extreme brutality and societal outrage. It reaffirmed that the death penalty is constitutional when applied judiciously, adhering to Articles 14 and 21.
Significance: The judgment underscored that the death penalty remains a valid punishment for crimes that shock the collective conscience, provided due process is followed.
Current Position and Analysis
Constitutional Validity: The Supreme Court has consistently upheld the death penalty as constitutional under Articles 14, 19, and 21, provided it is imposed through a fair, non-arbitrary process and reserved for the "rarest of rare" cases. The judiciary ensures this through individualized sentencing, considering both aggravating and mitigating factors.
Safeguards: The "rarest of rare" doctrine, judicial discretion, and mandatory confirmation of death sentences by High Courts (under Section 366, CrPC) serve as constitutional safeguards. The President’s and Governor’s clemency powers under Articles 72 and 161 provide additional checks.
Criticisms and Challenges: Critics argue that the death penalty risks arbitrary application due to subjective interpretations of "rarest of rare." Studies, like the 2016 Death Penalty India Report by the National Law University, Delhi, highlight socio-economic disparities in its application, raising Article 14 concerns. However, courts have addressed this by emphasizing mitigation and proportionality.
Evolving Standards: Recent judgments show a cautious approach, with the Supreme Court often commuting death sentences to life imprisonment when mitigating factors exist, reflecting a balance between justice and humanity.

The death penalty in India is constitutionally valid, with the Supreme Court upholding its legality in landmark judgments like Jagmohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab. While the right to life (Article 21) is a fundamental right, the court has interpreted it as allowing for deprivation of life through a legally prescribed procedure, including the death penalty in certain cases. The "rarest of rare cases" doctrine, established in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, guides the application of capital punishment, emphasizing its exceptional nature.

the first one was in jagmohan singh vs state of uttar pradesh as it not violate the article 14 and 19 .
next ion bacchan singh vs state of Punjab that death will be in rare of te rarest case that there should be 0% mitigation and and more aggravating factors.

The death penalty in India is constitutionally valid, with the Supreme Court upholding its legality in landmark judgments like Jagmohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab. While the right to life (Article 21) is a fundamental right, the court has interpreted it as allowing for deprivation of life through a legally prescribed procedure, including the death penalty in certain cases. The "rarest of rare cases" doctrine, established in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, guides the application of capital punishment, emphasizing its exceptional nature