The death penalty, sometimes known as capital punishment, is the harshest form of punishment available under any criminal legislation in existence anywhere in the world. The Death Penalty was debated in the Constituent Assembly between 1947 and 1949. The question was raised because of its judge-centric nature, the possibility of ambiguity in its application, the discriminatory impact it has on the poor and marginalised, and the possibility of an error in the final verdict. This article explains the Constituent Assembly Debate on Abolition of Death Penalty which is important for UPSC Indian Polity Preparation.

Constituent Assembly Debate on Abolition of Death Penalty

Mr. Z.H. Lari advocated the introduction of Article 11-B during the Constituent Assembly deliberations, in which he proposed the removal of capital punishment save for sedition involving the use of violence.

• According to him, capital punishment has been banned in a number of countries around the world.
• He made this argument because, after the sentence is proclaimed, the perpetrator is no longer living. If the court or tribunal later discovers that it made a mistake, i.e. that the individual on whom the sentence is imposed is not guilty, the mistake will be irreversible.
• He was a firm believer in the sanctity of human life. Only when a man's life is in jeopardy to the lives of others in society can his life be taken.
• He cited thirty countries around the world where society as a whole is protected without such punishment.
• He also admitted that capital punishment is inherently barbaric, and that such feelings no longer exist in the twenty-first century.
• He used the example of Charles Dickens, who remarked many decades ago that capital punishment motivates those who are determined to commit murders to conduct murders because it is accompanied by a sense of martyrdom.
• He then stated that capital penalty is appropriate for chronic murders, but that life imprisonment is appropriate instead of capital punishment for murderers who have committed the crime only on rare occasions.
• He then proposed that the punishment have a reformative component. He demanded that in the case of punishment, reformation be given first priority.
• He called for the death penalty to be abolished on three grounds: human judgement, the sanctity of human life, and the purpose of punishment.
• He also agreed that if the state is put in jeopardy and there is a possibility of many people losing their lives, such punishment may be imposed.
• He also predicted that the punishment would be abolished permanently by the Parliament in two or three years.

Shri Amiyo Kumar Ghosh then stated his views.

• According to him, the aforementioned sentence is inhumane, and judges are likely to make mistakes.
• He agreed that society contains not just good but also evil components, and that in order to prevent such anti-social groups from usurping society, the State may impose such sanctions on those who wish to terrify society.
• He goes on to add that India is in a phase of change, during which substantial difficulties may confront the state and society, necessitating the imposition of severe punishments by the state.
• So, according to him, capital punishment should be abolished, but the correct way to do so is by revising the Indian Penal Code or other laws that inflict such a penalty, not by including a clause to that effect in the Constitution and tying the State's hands.
• This is because if such a phrase is included in the Constitution, the State will be unable to impose such a penalty without modifying the Constitution, which is a tough process.

Following that, Shri. K. Hanumanthaiya stated that instead of capital punishment, the guilty should be sentenced to life imprisonment.

• He admitted that the fear concept is vital from the standpoint of the state.
• He stated that if reformation is practised, deterrence will inevitably lose its value. A life-sentenced convict is quickly released under reformation after receiving various concessions.
• If the offender knows that if he kills the life of another person, he will be imprisoned for a long period, he will not do so.
• As a result, he advised that the punishment should not be eliminated for the sake of the state's security.
• The proposed repeal of Article 11-B, which would have abolished the death penalty, was rejected.

Conclusion

The writers of the Constitution intended for Article 11-B to partially abolish capital punishment. They did not want the state to be rendered powerless as a result of the abolition of capital punishment. They believed that reformation alone would not be sufficient. They claimed that deterrence was required. They also voiced their belief that capital punishment can be abolished if society has progressed to a certain point. The majority of the framers were opposed to the death penalty being abolished completely. Article 11-B was not included in the Indian Constitution since the proposal to include it was defeated. However, their aim to abolish the death penalty has become very evident.

FAQs

MCQs

1. Which of the following was a key argument against the death penalty during the Constituent Assembly debates?

A) It acted as a deterrent against terrorism
B) It is irreversible and inhuman
C) It was necessary to maintain law and order
D) It was supported by a majority of members

2. Who was the prominent leader who supported the retention of the death penalty in the Constituent Assembly?

A) Jawaharlal Nehru
B) B.R. Ambedkar
C) Sardar Patel
D) Maulana Azad

3. Which of the following was a key outcome of the Constituent Assembly debates on the death penalty?

A) The immediate abolition of the death penalty
B) The death penalty was retained for only economic crimes
C) The death penalty was retained for the rarest of rare cases
D) The death penalty was made mandatory for certain crimes

4. Which of the following principles did the debate on the death penalty reflect in the Indian legal system?

A) Retributive justice
B) Preventive justice
C) Rehabilitation and human dignity
D) Punitive justice

5. The death penalty debate in the Constituent Assembly was most concerned with which of the following issues?

A) Its deterrent effect on crime
B) Its compatibility with human rights
C) Its role in maintaining national security
D) Its cost and efficiency

GS Mains Questions and Model Answers

Q1: Evaluate the ethical and legal arguments for and against the death penalty in the context of the Indian legal system.

Answer: The ethical argument against the death penalty is rooted in the belief that taking a life, even for the most heinous of crimes, is inhumane and irreversible. Legal arguments in favor argue that it acts as a deterrent against extreme crimes like terrorism and murder. However, the Indian legal system, through its retention of the death penalty for the 'rarest of rare' cases, seeks to balance these ethical and legal concerns. Judicial safeguards are in place to prevent arbitrary imposition, ensuring fairness and preventing miscarriages of justice.

Q2: How did the Constituent Assembly's decision on the death penalty influence India's approach to human rights in the modern era?

Answer: The Constituent Assembly's decision to retain the death penalty with strict conditions shaped India’s human rights discourse. It set a precedent for adopting a balanced approach, recognizing both the need for justice and the importance of human dignity. It also contributed to the development of international human rights standards and India's commitment to the protection of life, with successive governments focusing on rehabilitation and reform in the penal system.

Q3: In what ways can the abolition of the death penalty contribute to the advancement of human rights in India?

Answer: Abolishing the death penalty would reinforce the Indian commitment to human rights by eliminating a punishment that is irreversible and often deemed inhumane. It would align India with a growing number of countries that have abolished capital punishment, ensuring that justice systems focus on rehabilitation and the protection of life. Abolition would also reduce the risk of wrongful convictions and promote a more humane approach to crime and punishment.

Previous Year Questions on the Death Penalty Debate

UPSC CSE 2014

Question: "Discuss the ethical and legal arguments for and against the death penalty. Should India abolish the death penalty?"

Answer: The debate over the death penalty has both legal and ethical dimensions. Proponents argue it serves as a deterrent for heinous crimes and maintains law and order. Opponents cite the inhumanity of capital punishment and its irreversibility in case of judicial error. India should reconsider its stance, considering modern human rights principles.

UPSC CSE 2016

Question: "Analyze the factors that shape the legal framework of criminal justice in India with reference to the death penalty."

Answer: Factors shaping the death penalty debate in India include constitutional guarantees, public opinion, judicial interpretations, and international human rights standards. The rarest of rare doctrine reflects India's cautious stance, aiming to balance justice, fairness, and human rights in its criminal justice system.