Context:
-
Recent Supreme Court acquittals of death-row prisoners have exposed deep structural flaws in India’s criminal justice system, particularly in death penalty cases.
-
The editorial highlights how investigative lapses, weak evidence, and inadequate legal aid have led to wrongful convictions, raising urgent concerns of social justice, constitutional morality, and ethics.
Key Highlights:
Supreme Court Trends on Death Penalty
-
The Supreme Court has not confirmed a single death sentence for the third consecutive year, indicating heightened judicial caution.
-
Several individuals, including Rakesh, Krishna, and Manoj, were wrongly convicted and sentenced to death, only to be acquitted after spending years in prison.
Human Cost of Wrongful Convictions
-
Acquitted individuals suffered:
-
Prolonged incarceration
-
Family separation
-
Loss of livelihood
-
Social stigma and psychological trauma
-
-
Even after acquittal, the absence of rehabilitation mechanisms leaves them without support to rebuild their lives.
Investigative and Procedural Failures
-
Cases reveal a pattern of:
-
Poor-quality investigations
-
Reliance on weak or circumstantial evidence
-
Use of extra-judicial confessions, which courts view with skepticism
-
-
The Supreme Court has repeatedly flagged grave procedural violations in evidence collection and trial processes.
Legal Representation and Marginalisation
-
Many death-row convicts come from marginalised socio-economic backgrounds and suffer from inadequate legal aid at trial and appellate stages.
-
The lack of rigorous scrutiny at lower courts makes appellate intervention crucial in death penalty cases.
Absence of Police Reforms and Investigative Code
-
The editorial underlines the failure to implement long-pending police reforms, contributing to systemic miscarriages of justice.
-
The absence of a codified investigative framework allows arbitrariness and abuse of power.
Compensation and Accountability Gap
-
India lacks a statutory right to compensation for wrongful convictions.
-
Acquittal alone does not restore dignity, livelihood, or lost years, exposing a serious justice deficit.
Role of Mitigation in Sentencing
-
Mitigation investigations, documenting the accused’s life history and circumstances, help courts assess individual culpability and humanity.
-
However, mitigation investigators face ethical dilemmas in balancing disclosure with privacy, trauma, and dignity of the accused and families.
Relevant Prelims Points:
-
Issue: Wrongful convictions in death penalty cases.
-
Causes: Investigative lapses, weak evidence, inadequate legal aid, absence of police reforms.
-
Judicial Trends: Supreme Court’s increasing reluctance to confirm death sentences.
-
Key Legal Concepts:
-
Extra-judicial confession – low evidentiary value
-
Curative jurisdiction – correction of grave judicial errors
-
-
Impact: Erosion of public confidence in the criminal justice system.
Relevant Mains Points:
-
Key Concepts & Definitions:
-
Mitigation: Presentation of an accused’s background and life circumstances during sentencing
-
Curative Jurisdiction: Supreme Court’s power to remedy rare and grave injustice
-
-
Polity & Social Justice (GS II):
-
Right to life and dignity (Article 21)
-
Need for effective legal aid and fair trial standards
-
-
Ethics Dimension (GS IV):
-
Moral responsibility of the State in irreversible punishments
-
Ethical costs of wrongful convictions and state accountability
-
-
Systemic Issues:
-
Failure of police reforms
-
Lack of investigative accountability
-
-
Way Forward:
-
Enact a law on compensation for wrongful convictions
-
Implement police reforms and investigative codes
-
Strengthen legal aid and appellate scrutiny in capital cases
-
Institutionalise mitigation as part of sentencing jurisprudence
-
UPSC Relevance (GS-wise):
-
GS II: Polity, Social Justice, Criminal justice system
-
GS IV: Ethics, human dignity, state responsibility
-
Prelims: Death penalty jurisprudence, curative jurisdiction, legal process concepts