What is the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine?

Sub :Polity

Sec: Judiciary

Context:-

On January 22, two separate murder convictions resulted in sharply contrasting verdicts, highlighting how the Indian courts apply the death penalty.
While one case led to capital punishment, the other saw the accused sentenced to life imprisonment, reigniting questions about the judiciary’s approach to the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine, which till now does not have a statutory definition.

Recent Cases Highlighting the Doctrine

R.G. Kar Medical College Case.
- Verdict: Convicted based on forensic evidence; sentenced to life imprisonment and fined.
- Court’s Reasoning: Not classified as ‘rarest of rare.’
Sharon Murder Case
- Incident: Sharon Raj, a 23-year-old student, was poisoned by his partner, Greeshma, using an Ayurvedic concoction.
- Verdict: Death penalty awarded by Neyyattinkara Additional Sessions Court.
- Court’s Reasoning: Classified as ‘rarest of rare.’

Origins of the Doctrine

Jagmohan Singh vs. State of U.P. (1972)
- First major challenge to the death penalty’s constitutionality.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
- Violates Article 19 (Fundamental Rights).
- Unfair judicial discretion in sentencing.
- Violates Article 14 (Right to Equality).
Supreme Court’s Ruling:
- Death penalty is constitutional under Article 21 (Right to Life).
- Judicial discretion in sentencing is valid.
Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab (1980)
- Supreme Court established the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine.
- Death penalty to be awarded only in exceptional cases.
- Lacked a clear definition of ‘rarest of rare.’
Machhi Singh vs. State of Punjab (1983)
- Supreme Court provided a framework for ‘rarest of rare’ crimes.
- Five criteria for awarding the death penalty:
  - Manner of committing the murder – Extremely brutal, shocking community conscience.
  - Motive of the murder – Shows total depravity.
  - Socially abhorrent nature – Includes murders based on communal, caste, or gender-based violence.
  - Magnitude of the crime – Multiple murders or exceptionally heinous crimes.
  - Personality of the victim – Includes children, the elderly, and vulnerable individuals.

Judicial Revisions and Evolving Framework

Mithu vs. State of Punjab (1983)
- Struck down Section 303 of IPC, which mandated the death penalty for life-term convicts committing murder.
- Ruled as unconstitutional under Articles 14 and 21.
Supreme Court’s 2022 Referral to Constitution Bench
- Providing a “meaningful, real, and effective” hearing on mitigating circumstances in death penalty cases.
- Expected Outcome: A uniform approach to considering mitigating factors before classifying a case as ‘rarest of rare.’