Report-Death Sentences and Executions 2024

Analyzing the Death Sentences and Executions Report 2024

The Amnesty International report, "Death Sentences and Executions 2024," highlights the persistent tension between the global movement towards human rights-based criminal justice and the weaponization of the death penalty to suppress dissent and minorities. While the absolute number of executions witnessed a spike in 2024, the geographical concentration of such executions reveals its underlying political exploitation. This subject directly maps to GS-III (Internal Security: Criminal Justice) and GS-II (Governance: Judicial Reforms), providing insights into India’s capital punishment framework within a global context.

UPSC Relevance Snapshot

• GS-II: Polity and Governance – Functioning of the judiciary, rights, and human rights frameworks.
• GS-III: Internal Security – Criminal justice and discretionary death sentencing in India.
• Essay: Ethical debate on "Justice versus Human Rights: The Death Penalty Conundrum."

Institutional Framework

The report underscores a dual reality of global trends: while 145 countries have abolished the death penalty in law or practice, a small cluster of nations continues to execute individuals, disproportionately for drug-related offences and political motivations. India operates under the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine but retains legal sanction for execution under strict judicial scrutiny. This dynamic also aligns with international agreements and moral frameworks on human rights, such as Articles 6 and 7 of the ICCPR.

• Key Global Frameworks:
  • Article 6 of the ICCPR: Allows capital punishment in limited circumstances while encouraging abolition.
  • UN Safeguards (1984): Guarantees the rights of individuals facing capital punishment.
  • Second Optional Protocol to ICCPR (1989): Urges state parties to abolish the death penalty entirely.
• India’s Legal Framework:
  • ‘Rarest of rare’ doctrine: Enunciated in Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab (1980).
  • Sections 354(5) and 302 of IPC: Provide for death by hanging under specific crimes.
  • Execution statistics: India has not carried out new executions since 2020 (Nirbhaya case).

Key Issues and Challenges

Global Trends and Disparities

• Geographical Concentration: Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq accounted for 91% of global executions (2024).
• Predominance of Drug-Related Offences: Over 40% of executions globally in 2024 were tied to drug trafficking, undermining proportionality in sentencing.
• China’s Secretive Practices: China remains the world leader in executions but prevents public scrutiny through incomplete data disclosure.

Systemic Issues in India

• Inconsistency in Sentencing: Project 39A critiques the lack of coherent trials and guidelines in death sentences. No sentence was confirmed by the SC in 2024.
• Socio-Economic Vulnerability: A disproportionate number of those executed or on death row belong to marginalized communities.
• Judicial Concerns: Despite the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine, ambiguity often complicates its application.

Lack of Universal Abolition

• Political Tool: Nations like Saudi Arabia misuse capital punishment to suppress dissent (Amnesty International report).
• Deterrence Debate: Despite retention in several jurisdictions, evidence fails to confirm its deterrent effect.

Comparative Analysis: India vs. Global

Critical Evaluation

While India's restrictive application of the death penalty demonstrates a commitment to judicial restraint, systemic gaps undermine its fairness. Notably, socio-economic profiles of prisoners on death row point to structural inequities. On the global stage, the report highlights the dissonance between international human rights norms and state practices in authoritarian countries. High reliance on capital punishment for drug-related offences reflects both over-criminalization and the lack of rehabilitative approaches in national systems.

Despite global efforts towards abolition, countries wielding the death penalty as a political weapon undermine international commitments. For India, further reform is needed, including clearer guidelines on the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine and ensuring equitable legal representation for marginalized groups.

Structured Assessment

• Policy Design: India’s adoption of the ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine is progressive, but its implementation lacks judicial consistency globally.
• Governance/Institutional Capacity: Global reliance on secrecy (e.g., China) and political misuse (Saudi Arabia) raises questions about governance frameworks.
• Behavioural/Structural Issues: Persistent socio-economic inequities in India’s death row cases reflect broader criminal justice flaws.

Exam Integration

Prelims

1. Which of the following doctrines governs the imposition of the death penalty in India?
   • (a) Principle of Reasonable Classification
   • (b) Rarest of Rare
   • (c) Absolute Deterrence
   • (d) Principle of Proportionality
   Answer: (b)
2. Article 6 of the ICCPR primarily advocates:
   • (a) Universal abolition of the death penalty without exceptions.
   • (b) Limiting but not encouraging the practice of the death penalty.
   • (c) Allowing nations to execute at their discretion without restrictions.
   • (d) Enforcement of capital punishment under international criminal law.
   Answer: (b)

Mains

Q: Critically evaluate the use of the death penalty in India within the ‘rarest of rare’ framework in the context of global trends toward abolition. (250 words)

Practice Questions for UPSC

Prelims Practice Questions

Frequently Asked Questions