A+| A| A-
Death Penalty
While I am in agreement with the principal argument in Suhrith Parthasarathy’s “Law Commission Report on ‘Death Penalty’: A Chance to Overcome Incoherence in Indian Jurisprudence?” (EPW, 19 July 2014), I am not convinced that the decision in M D Shinde vs State of Maharashtra (2014) restores death penalty jurisprudence to the Machhi Singh vs State of Punjab days.
While I am in agreement with the principal argument in Suhrith Parthasarathy’s “Law Commission Report on ‘Death Penalty’: A Chance to Overcome Incoherence in Indian Jurisprudence?” (EPW, 19 July 2014), I am not convinced that the decision in M D Shinde vs State of Maharashtra (2014) restores death penalty jurisprudence to the Machhi Singh vs State of Punjab days.
In my reading, Shinde is centred on the majority decision of four judges in Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab(1980). Para 201 of the report in Bachan Singh requires the judge to accord “relative weight” to the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, according to the facts of the case, ruling out consideration of these in a compartmentalised or “balance sheet” (as per Machhi Singh) fashion. The two-judge bench in Shankar Kisanrao Khade vs State of Maharashtra replaces the sentencing standard of “relative weight” with the 100% + 0% formula (which, it may be argued, necessitates consideration of the circumstances in separate, water-tight compartments). Thus, it is not based on a sound reading of Bachan Singh.
Dear Reader,
Or
To gain instant access to this article (download).
(Readers in India)
(Readers outside India)
