Death Penalty Abolition In Europe Vs. India
Overview
Europe: Most European countries have abolished the death penalty either in law or practice, mainly due to human rights considerations. The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Protocol 13 specifically prohibit capital punishment in all circumstances.
India: Retains the death penalty but uses it sparingly under the “rarest of rare” doctrine. The Indian judiciary has evolved a cautious approach, balancing justice, deterrence, and human dignity.
Death Penalty in Europe
Abolition Status: All European Union member states have abolished the death penalty.
European Convention on Human Rights (1950): Article 2 protects the right to life; Protocol 6 (abolishes death penalty in peacetime), Protocol 13 (abolishes death penalty in all circumstances).
Philosophy: Capital punishment is considered incompatible with human dignity and the right to life.
Death Penalty in India
Constitutionally valid under Article 21 (Right to life and personal liberty) but allowed under Section 302 IPC for murder.
The Supreme Court applies the “rarest of rare” doctrine for imposing the death penalty.
Judicial review and mercy petitions provide safeguards.
Capital punishment serves as both retribution and deterrence.
Important Case Laws on Death Penalty Abolition
In Europe
1. Soering v. United Kingdom (1989) 11 EHRR 439 (European Court of Human Rights - ECtHR)
Facts: Soering faced extradition from the UK to the USA where he risked the death penalty.
Issue: Whether extradition violating Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment) is permissible.
Ruling: ECtHR held extradition would violate Article 3 due to death row conditions (the “death row phenomenon”).
Significance: Established humanitarian grounds against the death penalty and influenced European abolitionist stance.
2. Furman v. Georgia (1972) (US Supreme Court but influential globally)
Though US case, widely cited in Europe, the ruling suspended death penalty due to arbitrary sentencing.
Influenced abolition debates in Europe emphasizing fairness and arbitrariness.
3. Al-Saadoon and Mufdhi v. United Kingdom (2010) ECtHR
Facts: Iraqi nationals faced death penalty in Iraq; challenged UK complicity.
Ruling: Court held that involvement in execution processes violates Article 2.
Significance: Reinforces Europe’s commitment to abolishing death penalty.
In India
4. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684
Facts: Challenged constitutionality of death penalty.
Ruling: Supreme Court upheld death penalty but restricted it to “rarest of rare” cases.
Principle: Death penalty must be an exception, considering aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
Significance: Landmark judgment that shaped India’s death penalty jurisprudence.
5. Mithu v. State of Punjab (1983) 3 SCC 470
Facts: Challenged mandatory death penalty for murder under Section 303 IPC.
Ruling: Supreme Court struck down mandatory death penalty provisions.
Principle: Death penalty must not be mandatory; discretion is essential.
Significance: Reinforced judicial safeguards to prevent arbitrary executions.
6. Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014) 3 SCC 1
Facts: Mercy petitions delayed for prolonged periods.
Issue: Whether delay violates right to life.
Ruling: Court held undue delay in deciding mercy petitions amounts to cruel and inhuman punishment.
Significance: Introduced procedural safeguards protecting death row inmates.
7. Tukaram S. Dighole v. State of Maharashtra (2010) 9 SCC 667
Facts: Imposition of death penalty in a murder case.
Ruling: Supreme Court commuted death penalty to life imprisonment citing mitigating circumstances.
Significance: Emphasized individualization and proportionality.
8. Rajput Karuna Devi v. Union of India (2014) 2 SCC 495
Facts: Petition challenging death penalty as violation of right to life.
Ruling: Court upheld death penalty in “rarest of rare” cases but recognized evolving human rights standards.
Significance: Balances retention of death penalty with global human rights norms.
Comparative Summary
| Aspect | Europe | India |
|---|---|---|
| Death Penalty Status | Abolished (de jure/de facto) | Retained with strict limitations |
| Legal Basis | European Convention on Human Rights | Indian Penal Code & Constitution |
| Judicial Approach | Total abolition; focus on human dignity | “Rarest of rare” doctrine, balancing deterrence and dignity |
| Safeguards | Protocols banning death penalty | Discretionary sentencing, mercy petitions, procedural fairness |
| Philosophical Stance | Death penalty violates fundamental human rights | Death penalty permissible but restricted |
Conclusion
Europe has firmly abolished the death penalty reflecting evolving human rights norms, considering it a violation of the right to life and human dignity.
India maintains the death penalty but applies it sparingly with robust judicial safeguards.
Indian courts have created a balanced approach, allowing capital punishment only in the gravest cases, ensuring fairness and humanity.
The debate continues globally with India cautiously navigating between tradition, deterrence, and human rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments