“Rarest Of Rare” Doctrine Application
📌 1. What is the “Rarest of Rare” Doctrine?
The “Rarest of Rare” doctrine is a judicial principle developed by the Supreme Court of India to guide courts in deciding whether to impose the death penalty. According to this doctrine:
Death penalty should only be awarded in the rarest of rare cases, where the alternative of life imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed.
This doctrine is not defined in the Indian Penal Code, but evolved jurisprudentially, especially under Section 302 IPC (murder) and Article 21 of the Constitution (Right to Life).
⚖️ 2. Origin of the Doctrine
🔹 Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980)
Citation: AIR 1980 SC 898
Facts: Bachan Singh was convicted of murdering a family member. The question was whether the death penalty under Section 302 IPC violates Article 21.
Held:
The Constitution Bench upheld the constitutional validity of the death penalty, but imposed judicial limitations on its use.
Introduced the “rarest of rare” test: death penalty should be awarded only when life imprisonment is “inadequate” based on the circumstances of the crime and the criminal.
Significance:
Landmark case that created the doctrine.
Laid down a balancing test between mitigating and aggravating circumstances.
🧪 3. Guidelines from Bachan Singh Case
The court laid down that:
Death penalty should be imposed only when alternative option is foreclosed.
Judges must consider:
Nature and manner of the crime
Motive
Criminal’s background
Possibility of reformation
Impact on society
📘 4. Key Cases Applying or Interpreting the Doctrine
✅ 1. Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983)
Citation: AIR 1983 SC 957
Facts: Multiple murders were committed by a group in retaliation; the killings were brutal and premeditated.
Held:
The court elaborated on the “rarest of rare” test laid down in Bachan Singh.
Identified five categories where death penalty may be justified:
Manner of commission (extreme brutality)
Motive (depraved)
Anti-social or socially abhorrent nature
Magnitude of crime (multiple victims)
Personality of victim (child, old, etc.)
Significance:
Provided a structured framework for applying the doctrine.
✅ 2. Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal (1994)
Citation: AIR 1994 SC 628
Facts: Dhananjoy, a security guard, raped and murdered a schoolgirl in her home.
Held:
Death sentence upheld.
Court held that the crime was extremely brutal, the victim was vulnerable, and betrayal of trust aggravated the crime.
Significance:
First major case post-Machhi Singh where death penalty was upheld under “rarest of rare”.
Criticized later for being influenced by public opinion and media pressure.
✅ 3. Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar v. State of Maharashtra (2009)
Citation: (2009) 6 SCC 498
Facts: Accused kidnapped and murdered a man for ransom.
Held:
Death sentence commuted to life imprisonment.
Emphasized the need to explore the possibility of reform and not to impose death penalty mechanically.
Criticized earlier cases where mitigating circumstances were ignored.
Significance:
Reasserted that judicial discretion must be cautious and evidence-based.
Highlighted errors in previous death penalty rulings.
✅ 4. Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014)
Citation: (2014) 3 SCC 1
Facts: Death row convicts challenged their sentence on the ground of delay in disposal of mercy petitions.
Held:
Excessive delay in execution of death sentence is a valid ground for commutation to life.
Upheld that human dignity continues till the last breath.
Significance:
Balanced “rarest of rare” with human rights jurisprudence.
Shows that even in rarest cases, procedural fairness is critical.
✅ 5. Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka (2008)
Citation: (2008) 13 SCC 767
Facts: Accused murdered his wife and buried her body in his house.
Held:
Death sentence commuted to life imprisonment for rest of natural life, without remission.
Court introduced the concept of “special category of life sentence” as an alternative to death.
Significance:
Innovative interpretation of “rarest of rare”.
Avoided death penalty while ensuring no premature release.
✅ 6. Mukesh & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) – Nirbhaya Case (2017)
Citation: (2017) 6 SCC 1
Facts: Brutal gang rape and murder of a young woman in Delhi. National outrage followed.
Held:
Death penalty upheld for all four convicts.
The extreme brutality, helplessness of the victim, and shock to society justified the “rarest of rare” label.
Significance:
Emphasized the collective conscience of society as a factor.
Reinforced application of the doctrine in the most egregious cases.
✅ 7. Rajendra Pralhadrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra (2012 & 2019)
Facts: Accused convicted of raping and murdering a minor girl.
Held (2012): Death sentence upheld.
Held (2019): Upon review, Supreme Court commuted death sentence to life, noting possibility of reformation was not considered earlier.
Significance:
Showed how failure to assess mitigating factors can lead to reversal even in heinous cases.
⚖️ 5. Summary of Key Judicial Principles
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Alternative of life must be foreclosed | Death penalty only if life imprisonment is clearly inadequate |
| Balancing test | Courts must weigh aggravating vs. mitigating factors |
| Possibility of reformation | Must be explored and recorded before imposing death |
| Human dignity is paramount | Delays or procedural violations can undo death sentence |
| Not based on public opinion | Courts must resist media or emotional pressures |
| No mechanical imposition | Every case must be decided on its unique facts and evidence |
🧠 6. Criticism of “Rarest of Rare” Doctrine
Subjective application – Judges may differ in interpreting “rarest”.
Inconsistent outcomes – Similar cases can lead to different punishments.
Influence of public sentiment – Risk of emotional or media pressure.
Death penalty debate – Critics argue even rare execution violates human rights.
✅ 7. Conclusion
The “Rarest of Rare” doctrine aims to strike a balance between the need for justice and the sanctity of human life. It restricts the use of the death penalty, making it an exception rather than the norm.
Courts in India have refined and applied this doctrine carefully, taking into account:
Nature of crime,
Brutality,
Victim profile,
Possibility of reform, and
Procedural fairness.
While some judgments have drawn criticism for inconsistency or populist influence, the doctrine continues to serve as a guardrail against arbitrary executions, ensuring that the death penalty is not imposed casually or excessively.
RELATED Blog
0 comments