Copyright © 2026 Authors retain the copyright of this article. This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

@article{201269,
        author = {Monish Kumar. K and Vimala R},
        title = {DEATH PENALTY IN INDIA DETERRENCE OR VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS},
        journal = {International Journal of Innovative Research in Technology},
        year = {2026},
        volume = {12},
        number = {12},
        pages = {4272-4287},
        issn = {2349-6002},
        url = {https://ijirt.org/article?manuscript=201269},
        abstract = {The death penalty remains one of the most contested forms of punishment within modern criminal justice systems. In India, it is constitutionally permissible but restricted to the “rarest of rare” cases. This article critically examines whether capital punishment functions as an effective deterrent or constitutes a violation of fundamental human rights. Through doctrinal and analytical methods, the study evaluates constitutional provisions, statutory frameworks, and judicial precedents alongside criminological and human rights perspectives. The findings suggest that empirical evidence supporting deterrence is inconclusive, while concerns regarding arbitrariness, judicial inconsistency, and irreversible error persist. The article argues for a re-evaluation of India’s retentionist stance in light of constitutional morality and evolving global human rights standards.
The death penalty remains one of the most debated and controversial forms of punishment in contemporary criminal justice systems. In India, capital punishment continues to exist as a legal sanction for the “rarest of rare” cases, primarily involving heinous offences such as murder, terrorism, and crimes threatening national security. While proponents argue that the death penalty serves as a powerful deterrent against grave crimes and ensures retributive justice for victims, critics contend that it violates fundamental human rights, particularly the right to life and dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. This paper seeks to examine whether the death penalty in India genuinely functions as an effective deterrent to crime or stands in conflict with evolving human rights norms.
The study analyses constitutional provisions, judicial interpretations, and landmark Supreme Court judgments governing capital punishment, alongside statistical and empirical data relating to crime deterrence. It also explores the ethical and moral dimensions of the death penalty, with particular emphasis on concerns of arbitrariness, judicial discretion, and the disproportionate impact on marginalized and economically weaker sections of society. The research further situates India’s position within the broader international context by examining global trends toward abolition and the country’s obligations under international human rights instruments.
By assessing arguments both in Favor of retention and abolition, this paper aims to present a balanced and critical understanding of the death penalty’s role within India’s criminal justice framework. It questions whether capital punishment achieves its intended objectives of deterrence and justice or whether it perpetuates irreversible injustice within an imperfect legal system, thereby underscoring the need for re-evaluating India’s penal policy in light of constitutional values and contemporary human rights standards.},
        keywords = {Death penalty, Capital punishment, Article 21, Rarest of rare doctrine, Human rights, Deterrence theory.},
        month = {May},
        }