death penalty

Delhi gang rape verdict: By invoking ‘collective conscience’, the Supreme Court sidestepped justice

This rhetoric is antithetical to the apex court’s restrictive death penalty regime, yet it continues to guide judgements.

On May 5, a packed courtroom broke into applause as a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court confirmed the death sentence to four convicts in the December 2012 Delhi gang rape case. A room otherwise attuned to the sound of dispassionate arguments heard a scream from someone in the crowd demanding castration of the condemned men, echoing the public mobilisation around the case as well as the near governing influence of public opinion on the verdict.

Indeed, in their concurring opinions, Justice Dipak Misra – writing for himself and Justice Ashok Bhushan – and Justice R Banumathi recognised this influence when they remarked that the crime was “bound to shock the collective conscience which knows not what to do” and a lesser punishment would “shake the confidence of the public” in the criminal justice system.

Now ubiquitous, the phrase “collective conscience” was first used by the Supreme Court in 1983 in Machhi Singh’s case, which had brought an anti-climatic end to decade-long resistance to various facets of the death penalty in India.

After the court rejected a constitutional challenge to the death penalty in 1973, the Parliament introduced “special reasons” as a judicial pre-requisite for imposing it. In the judgements that followed, the Supreme Court chose reformative justice over retribution and recited MK Gandhi’s words against harsher punishment. In 1980, the majority of four judges in Bachan Singh case restricted the death penalty to “the rarest of rare cases when the alternative option is unquestionably foreclosed”, effectively making death as punishment the exception rather than the rule. The sole dissenter, Justice PN Bhagwati, declared the death penalty unconstitutional.

Crucially, the judgement warned future judges against becoming “oracles or spokesmen of public opinion”, and directed that great weight be given to mitigating factors.

In 1983, the court struck down even the mandatory death penalty for murder by a person already sentenced to life, arguing that it compelled judges “to shut their eyes to mitigating circumstances.”

Was public opinion in the 1970s and the early 80s sliding against the death penalty? Certainly not. The impediments created by the court to the use of the death sentence were not down to judicial reflections of public opinion, but a cognisance of the thinking on punishment globally. The apex court’s judgements in this era were rich with references to the experience of other countries and constitutional courts that chose the abolitionist route without witnessing a crime surge.

This judicial movement was soon to get stunted.

Unpredictable judgement

Justice MP Thakkar was elevated to the Supreme Court in March 1983 and was almost immediately entrusted with authoring the judgment in a case of 17 murders. Machhi Singh and three others, sentenced to death, had challenged the sentence before the Supreme Court.

As a judge of the Gujarat High Court, Thakkar had invoked “collective conscience” as mere rhetoric in judgements covering far less serious matters such as municipality meetings. Not only had he never authored a reported judgement on the death penalty, he was the junior most of the three judges in Machhi Singh. Yet, he was entrusted the task.

In his judgement, Thakkar overlooked the warning to judges in Bachan Singh to avoid being “oracles of pubic opinion” despite his being a bench of lesser strength. The ruling instead articulated that the court must consider public opinion when deciding who must hang and endorsed the death penalty in cases where the “collective conscience is so shocked” that the society “will expect the holders of the judicial power centre to inflict death penalty irrespective of their personal opinion”.

Thakkar even re-imagined “rarest of rare” as comprising five factors, including brutality and extreme societal indignation. Not one of these factors pertained to the criminal. The legacy of Bachan Singh and the “rarest of rare” standard was burdened now by the rhetoric of “collective conscience”. The silence of the senior judges on this liberal factoring of public opinion despite the larger bench’s contrary view in Bachan Singh, seems inexplicable today.

Several judgements since 1983 have employed this rhetoric as a convenient heuristic and used “collective conscience” as a driving consideration. Often, this is justified by claiming that the process of delivering justice is not “judge centric” but “reflected by the will of the people”. This umbrella justification has been used across all classes of capital offences, most notably in the cases of Afzal Guru and Dhananjoy Chatterjee, in which the Supreme Court relied not upon the lack of mitigating circumstances but “a necessity” to answer the “society’s cry for justice”. Subsequently, though, in Bariyar’s case in 2009, the court warned against judicial reliance on “collective conscience”, stating that the death penalty policy may not be “attuned to public opinion”.

Despite these warnings, “collective conscience” remains entrenched in judicial imagination and reasoning as evidenced by several judgements pronounced since, including the one in the Delhi gang rape case.

Treading a dangerous path

Judicial attempts to assess the “society’s cry for justice” can be dangerous, owing to underlying prejudice in both public and media outrage. If a crime involves a spectacle of visible physical brutality, if the victim is relatable to a media-consuming and producing populace, if the crime is committed in a metropolitan area, the shrill pitch of “collective conscience” is sure to reach the verdict. The assumption of a monolithic “society” with an objective “cry for justice” creates a differing standard for unrelatable victims and popular culprits.

Further, the judicial conflation of harsh punishment as victim justice invalidates any punishment short of the death penalty, and alienates victims who cannot subject their perpetrators to the harsh penalties. The Delhi gang rape judgement would prod victims to peg closure with harsher punishments. While the victim’s family in this case received public support to their demand for the harshest punishment, families of victims without such geographical access and societal support are bound to claim injustice if a lesser punishment is given out.

Besides bias, judicial outrage for the “collective” creates a smokescreen, blinding judges to mitigating factors. In the May 5 judgement, the court was confronted with several mitigating factors such as young age suggesting the possibility of reform, lack of prior criminal conduct suggesting that the accused were not hardened criminals, the dependents of the family suggesting a negative psychological impact on those innocents in case a father or a husband is hanged. Unfortunately, the mitigating circumstances in this case were treated with a formalistic “considered and rejected” approach with “the nature of the crime” as justification, inverting the pre-Machhi Singh priorities in sentencing.

A day before the Delhi gang rape judgement was delivered, the Bombay High Court decided Bilkis Bano’s case related to 14 murders and rape of three women by a Hindu mob during the Gujarat riots in 2002. The Central Bureau of Investigation sought enhancement of punishment to the death penalty for certain accused citing “collective conscience”, but the High Court considered mitigating factors such as lack of prior criminal conduct and lack of premeditation, and rejected the plea.

Public outcry for punishment is “determinative” as it seeks to decide the punishment based on the manner of commission of the crime. The court, however, cannot face the other way in disgust, and complex issues such as the background of the accused or mental imbalance require thorough investigation by an unprejudiced mind. A populist declaration of the accused as sub-human, at play in the Delhi gang rape case, betrays our commitment to an unbiased appreciation of the circumstances of the criminal.

Wasted opportunity

Further, the court may have missed an important alternative of extended life imprisonment without possibility of release as created by Swami case of 2008 and affirmed by a Constitution bench of the Supreme Court in Sriharan case in 2015.

In his opinion in the Delhi gang rape judgement, Misra has not discussed the merits of extended life imprisonment as an option, and Banumathi has simply stated her rejection of the option without reasoning. Public outcry, often emotive and seeking visible solutions, also does not consider the nuance of such harsher punishments available to the court that fall short of the death penalty. The court has abdicated its duty, especially as the death penalty can be imposed only when lesser punishments are “unquestionably foreclosed”.

Even the judicial vocabulary associated with the “collective conscience” model can create a feedback loop justifying harsher punishment in the public imagination, antithetical to the restrictive death penalty regime and further diluting the court’s duty to consider mitigating evidence. In Misra’s opinion in this and earlier death penalty judgments, sexual offenders are “monstrous”, “beastly”, “diabolical”, causing a “tsunami of shock to the collective conscience”, and “destroying the civilised marrows”. In the immediate aftermath of the judgement, TV channels read out Misra’s characterisations with approval, and called for the death penalty for all “monsters”. The circumstances related to the criminal are now a mere footnote to the public agenda. Such judicial posturing about crimes is bound to shape the public’s post-December 2012 idea of sexual violence and the death penalty, and increase space for extreme responses.

Acutely aware of the dangers of such a path, the South African Constitutional Court, while declaring the death penalty unconstitutional, observed that “public opinion may have some relevance to the enquiry, but in itself, it is no substitute for the duty vested in the Courts to interpret the Constitution and to uphold its provisions without fear or favour...It is only if there is a willingness to protect the worst and the weakest amongst us, that all of us can be secure that our own rights will be protected.”

By Yash S Vijay and Preeti Pratishruti Dash are with the Centre on the Death Penalty, National Law University, Delhi

We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.
Sponsored Content  BY 

Harvard Business School’s HBX brings the future of business education to India with online programs

HBX is not only offering courses online, but also connecting students to the power of its network.

The classic design of the physical Harvard Business School (HBS) classroom was once a big innovation – precisely designed teaching amphitheaters laid out for every student to participate from his or her seat with a “pit” in the center of the room from which professors orchestrate discussions analyzing business cases like a symphony lead. When it came to designing the online experience of HBX—the school’s digital learning initiative—HBS faculty worked tirelessly to blend these tenets of the HBS classroom pedagogy with the power of new technology. With real-world problem solving, active learning, and social learning as its foundation, HBX offers immersive and challenging self-paced learning experiences through its interactive online learning platform.

Reimagining digital education, breaking the virtual learning mold

Typically, online courses follow a one-way broadcast mode – lectures are video recorded and reading material is shared – and students learn alone and are individually tested. Moving away from the passive learning model, HBX has developed an online platform that leverages the HBS ‘case-based pedagogy’ and audio-visual and interaction tools to make learning engaging.

HBX courses are rarely taught through theory. Instead, students learn through real-world problem-solving. Students start by grappling with a business problem – with real world data and the complexity in which a business leader would have to make a decision – and learn the theory inductively. Thus even as mathematical theories are applied to business situations, students come away with a greater sense of clarity and perspective, whether it is reading a financial report, understanding why a brand’s approach to a random sample population study may or may not work, or how pricing works.

HBX Platform | Courses offered in the HBX CORe program
HBX Platform | Courses offered in the HBX CORe program

“Learning about concepts through real-life cases was my favorite part of the program. The cases really helped transform abstract concepts into observable situations one could learn from. Furthermore, it really helped me understand how to identify situations in which I could use the tools that HBX equipped me with,” says Anindita Ravikumar, a past HBX participant. India’s premier B-school IIM-Ahmedabad has borrowed the very same pedagogy from Harvard. Learning in this manner is far more engaging, relatable, and memorable.

Most lessons start with a short 2-3 minute video of a manager talking about the business problem at hand. Students are then asked to respond on how they would handle the issue. Questions can be in the form of either a poll or reflections. Everyone’s answers are then visible to the ‘classroom’. In the words of Professor Bharat Anand, Faculty Chair, HBX, “This turns out to be a really important distinction. The answers are being updated in real-time. You can see the distribution of answers, but you can also see what any other individual has answered, which means that you’re not anonymous.” Students have real profiles and get to know their ‘classmates’ and learn from each other.

HBX Interface | Students can view profiles of other students in their cohort
HBX Interface | Students can view profiles of other students in their cohort

Professor Anand also says, “We have what we call the three-minute rule. Roughly every three minutes, you are doing something different on the platform. Everyone is on the edge of their seats. Anyone could be called on to participate at any time. It’s a very lean forward mode of learning”. Students get ‘cold-called’ – a concept borrowed from the classroom – where every now and then individuals will be unexpectedly prompted to answer a question on the platform and their response will be shared with other members of the cohort. It keeps students engaged and encourages preparedness. While HBX courses are self-paced, participants are encouraged to get through a certain amount of content each week, which helps keep the cohort together and enables the social elements of the learning experience.

More than digital learning

The HBS campus experience is valued by alumni not just for the academic experience but also for the diverse network of peers they meet. HBX programs similarly encourage student interactions and opportunities for in-person networking. All HBXers who successfully complete their programs and are awarded a credential or certificate from HBX and Harvard Business School are invited to the annual on-campus HBX ConneXt event to meet peers from around the world, hear from faculty and business executives, and also experience the HBS campus near Cambridge.

HBXers at ConneXt, with Prof. Bharat Anand
HBXers at ConneXt, with Prof. Bharat Anand

Programs offered today

HBX offers a range of programs that appeal to different audiences.

To help college students and recent graduates prepare for the business world, HBX CORe (Credential of Readiness) integrates business essentials such as analytics, economics, and financial accounting. HBX CORe is also great for those interested in an MBA looking to strengthen their application and brush up their skills to be prepared for day one. For working professionals, HBX CORe and additional courses like Disruptive Strategy, Leading with Finance, and Negotiation Mastery, can help deepen understanding of essential business concepts in order to add value to their organizations and advance their careers.

Course durations range from 6 to 17 weeks depending on the program. All interested candidates must submit a free, 10-15 minute application that is reviewed by the HBX admissions team by the deadlines noted on the HBX website.

For more information, please review the HBX website.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of HBX and not by the Scroll editorial team.