GK Question

Answer: True

Bachan Singh (1980) death penalty and rarest of rare doctrine: (a) Context: Challenge to constitutionality of death penalty under Sections 302, 303 IPC; issue whether capital punishment violates Article 21, (b) Supreme Court holding (4:1): (i) Upheld constitutionality of death penalty as reasonable restriction under Article 21, (ii) Restricted application to 'rarest of rare' cases where alternative is unquestionably foreclosed, (iii) Required separate sentencing hearing: Aggravating/mitigating circumstances must be considered after conviction, (iv) Reasoned order: Court must record reasons for imposing/commuting death penalty, (c) Applications: (i) Aggravating circumstances: Heinous nature of crime with premeditation, extreme brutality, victim vulnerability, prior criminal record, (ii) Mitigating circumstances: Young age, mental illness, possibility of reformation, socio-economic background, provocation, (iii) Appellate review: Automatic appeal to High Court, Supreme Court for death sentences, (d) Subsequent developments: (i) Commutation: Courts commute death penalty where mitigating factors outweigh aggravating, (ii) Delay in execution: Inordinate delay can be ground for commutation as it violates Article 21, (iii) Mental health: Courts consider mental illness, trauma as mitigating factor, (e) Rationale: (i) Dignity: Death penalty must respect human dignity even of convicted persons, (ii) Proportionality: Punishment must be calibrated to crime, offender, with reformation in mind, (iii) Judicial caution: Utmost caution required in death penalty cases; alternative of life imprisonment preferred, (f) Illustrates dignity-centric constitutionalism: Article 21 interpreted to require utmost caution in death penalty; proportionality ensures punishment calibrated to crime, offender, with dignity, reformation in mind.