Judicial Discretion In Capital Punishment Sentencing In India: A Critical Analysis Of The Doctrine Of ‘Rarest Of Rare’

One of the most heated debates in modern times revolve around capital punishment since India still enforces this punishment just like other select nations.The Supreme Court of India, in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) established the 'rarest of rare' standard to restrict death penalty executions.The Supreme Court of India, in Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) further elaborated the Rarest of the Rare Doctrine.The Supreme Court of India designed this doctrine to protect death penalty use only for highly extraordinary situations.Many challenges exist in the application procedure which produces inconsistent outcomes that concern judicial freedom and arbitrary decisions as well as infringe upon fundamental rights.The present investigation analyzes the ability of the 'rarest of rare' doctrine to create a capstone sentencing procedure which combines objectivity with fairness.The analysis determines if this doctrine created consistent judgments or made sentences more arbitrary because judges lack proper criteria when applying it.The study examines death penalty sentence determinations through Supreme Court rulings and statistical research reports which combine with international legal standards to analyze judicial decision-making subjectivity and possible biases.The study deepens its analysis by examining how both social elements and economic aspects as well as elements from politics determine judicial freedom in capital cases.The study examines death penalty's constitutional effect on two major provisions found in Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).Results from this study will help draft guidelines through policy reforms to lower uncritical capital punishment processes and keep legal decisions kosher to fundamental equality standards and fair judicial practices.