It is incompatible with the right to life and the freedom from torture and cruel, barbaric, or degrading treatment or punishment to apply the death sentence. There's a growing consensus to abolish the death penalty everywhere. Approximately 170 states have either outlawed the death penalty or imposed a moratorium on its application.

The death penalty is still used in a small number of nations despite this trend towards abolition, primarily due to the misconception that it deters crime. A few states also continue to allow the death sentence to be used to offences other than those of great gravity involving the deliberate killing of another person, such as offences involving drugs or accusations of terrorism. There is still more to be done. Global abolition is required for the advancement of human rights and the improvement of human dignity.

The idea of deterrence is the foundation of the doctrine of the death penalty. It makes the case that by imposing a penalty as severe as death, more wrongdoers will be deterred from committing similar crimes in the future. But it doesn't concentrate on the convicted murderer's efforts to stop crimes from happening. Thus, the theory is based on a social framework that aims to lessen the likelihood of similar crimes happening again. However, practical evidence has shown that this principle is false.

Constitution and Capital Punishment:

However, because taking a person's sacred life requires a due process that is fair, reasonable, and impartial, as was decided in the 1978 case Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India. It suggests that the state may use laws to limit or eliminate a person's right to life as long as a legitimate and equitable process is in place. But only the most egregious offences are subject to the death penalty; other misdeeds are not punished in this way.

The constitutionality of the death penalty has frequently been contested. Even though India has a low execution rate compared to other nations like Saudi Arabia, which is notorious for having a high execution rate, the courts are nevertheless cautious to outlaw the practice entirely. However, the Indian Supreme Court has instructed trial tribunals to take into account mitigating factors that would result in a moderate form of punishment, even if it has upheld the constitutional legality of the death penalty. In its ruling, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that a fair trial is the fundamental requirement for any kind of punishment and that the death penalty cannot be imposed based solely on "public opinion."

The death penalty's constitutional validity has been affirmed by the court in notable decisions including Jagmohan Singh V. State of UP, when the court dismissed the claim that it infringes on the fundamental right to life. However, the views haven't always been the same. Judge Krishna Iyer emphasised in Rajendra Prasad V. State of U.P. that the death sentence should only be applied in extreme cases and that it actually violates articles 14, 19, and 21. This viewpoint was also supported by the unanimous verdict in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, when a five-judge panel provided the "rarest of rare cases" doctrine. The death penalty's constitutional legality was upheld by the court, which overturned the Rajendra Prasad ruling.

Law Commission Reports on Death Penalty:

35th Report
The question of whether to keep the death penalty in place or abolish it has been discussed extensively in India for a long time. The Law Commission investigated the death penalty for the first time in Indian history and made its findings public in its 35th Report. It stated that, "As an experiment, the death penalty may be abolished once so that it can be re-introduced again after completion of the experiment, but that, after looking to certain possibilities on the issue, it is suggested that capital punishment must be retained as it is in the country." Nonetheless, as will be covered in more detail in this section, the Commission stated in 2015 that they believed India should move closer to abolishing the death sentence.

187th Report
In 2003, the Law Commission of India once more delivered its 187th Report on the death penalty. The manner of carrying out death sentences and ancillary concerns were discussed in this report, but the important question of whether the death penalty is constitutional was left out.

The Law Commission of India examined and contrasted the execution of death sentences by hanging, intravenous lethal injection, and shooting in its paper on "Mode of Execution of Death Sentence and Incidental Matters." The Committee noted that the majority of hanging deaths are caused by asphyxia or strangling, which causes the condemned person to die slowly and in agony. the Report, it was suggested that the already employed hanging technique be supplemented with fatal injections and that these procedures be routinely evaluated. The Report evaluated the use of hanging as a method of carrying out death sentences against objective criteria such global norms, current criminological theories, and evolving standards of human decency.

262nd Report
The Law Commission of India, presided over by Justice A.P. Shah, published its 262nd Report on the subject of the death penalty in India in August of 2015. It was proposed that all offences other than those related to terrorism and acts of war be exempt from the death penalty.

Conclusion:
The complexity of crimes and associated evidence makes it extremely difficult to rule out judicial error in relation to any death penalty. But in more recent years, the Supreme Court has tended to limit the use of the death penalty to situations involving terrorism, inciting violence, or severe crimes. Nonetheless, the Indian legal system's reluctance to permit the abolition of the death penalty is indicative of its continued adherence to the deterrent doctrine. The rationale underlying the movement against the death penalty comes from realising that people are not irreversibly damaged in addition to incorrect judgement.

There will be greater space to establish a more efficient system of reformative systems in the absence of a punitive deterrent system. The need for justice and the dynamic nature of society values necessitate a revaluation of the death penalty that considers its effects on human rights as well as its effectiveness in deterring crime. The Supreme Court has taken a divided stance in the ongoing, complex dispute over the death penalty, as seen by its rulings. Nonetheless, it is crucial to promote a more nuanced appreciation of human existence and work towards a legal system that is consistent with the values of justice and equity.