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
Sponsored Content BY 

India’s urban water crisis calls for an integrated approach

We need solutions that address different aspects of the water eco-system and involve the collective participation of citizens and other stake-holders.

According to a UN report, around 1.2 billion people, or almost one fifth of the world’s population, live in areas where water is physically scarce and another 1.6 billion people, or nearly one quarter of the world’s population, face economic water shortage. They lack basic access to water. The criticality of the water situation across the world has in fact given rise to speculations over water wars becoming a distinct possibility in the future. In India the problem is compounded, given the rising population and urbanization. The Asian Development Bank has forecast that by 2030, India will have a water deficit of 50%.

Water challenges in urban India

For urban India, the situation is critical. In 2015, about 377 million Indians lived in urban areas and by 2030, the urban population is expected to rise to 590 million. Already, according to the National Sample Survey, only 47% of urban households have individual water connections and about 40% to 50% of water is reportedly lost in distribution systems due to various reasons. Further, as per the 2011 census, only 32.7% of urban Indian households are connected to a piped sewerage system.

Any comprehensive solution to address the water problem in urban India needs to take into account the specific challenges around water management and distribution:

Pressure on water sources: Rising demand on water means rising pressure on water sources, especially in cities. In a city like Mumbai for example, 3,750 Million Litres per Day (MLD) of water, including water for commercial and industrial use, is available, whereas 4,500 MLD is needed. The primary sources of water for cities like Mumbai are lakes created by dams across rivers near the city. Distributing the available water means providing 386,971 connections to the city’s roughly 13 million residents. When distribution becomes challenging, the workaround is to tap ground water. According to a study by the Centre for Science and Environment, 48% of urban water supply in India comes from ground water. Ground water exploitation for commercial and domestic use in most cities is leading to reduction in ground water level.

Distribution and water loss issues: Distribution challenges, such as water loss due to theft, pilferage, leaky pipes and faulty meter readings, result in unequal and unregulated distribution of water. In New Delhi, for example, water distribution loss was reported to be about 40% as per a study. In Mumbai, where most residents get only 2-5 hours of water supply per day, the non-revenue water loss is about 27% of the overall water supply. This strains the municipal body’s budget and impacts the improvement of distribution infrastructure. Factors such as difficult terrain and legal issues over buildings also affect water supply to many parts. According to a study, only 5% of piped water reaches slum areas in 42 Indian cities, including New Delhi. A 2011 study also found that 95% of households in slum areas in Mumbai’s Kaula Bunder district, in some seasons, use less than the WHO-recommended minimum of 50 litres per capita per day.

Water pollution and contamination: In India, almost 400,000 children die every year of diarrhea, primarily due to contaminated water. According to a 2017 report, 630 million people in the South East Asian countries, including India, use faeces-contaminated drinking water source, becoming susceptible to a range of diseases. Industrial waste is also a major cause for water contamination, particularly antibiotic ingredients released into rivers and soils by pharma companies. A Guardian report talks about pollution from drug companies, particularly those in India and China, resulting in the creation of drug-resistant superbugs. The report cites a study which indicates that by 2050, the total death toll worldwide due to infection by drug resistant bacteria could reach 10 million people.

A holistic approach to tackling water challenges

Addressing these challenges and improving access to clean water for all needs a combination of short-term and medium-term solutions. It also means involving the community and various stakeholders in implementing the solutions. This is the crux of the recommendations put forth by BASF.

The proposed solutions, based on a study of water issues in cities such as Mumbai, take into account different aspects of water management and distribution. Backed by a close understanding of the cost implications, they can make a difference in tackling urban water challenges. These solutions include:

Recycling and harvesting: Raw sewage water which is dumped into oceans damages the coastal eco-system. Instead, this could be used as a cheaper alternative to fresh water for industrial purposes. According to a 2011 World Bank report, 13% of total freshwater withdrawal in India is for industrial use. What’s more, the industrial demand for water is expected to grow at a rate of 4.2% per year till 2025. Much of this demand can be met by recycling and treating sewage water. In Mumbai for example, 3000 MLD of sewage water is released, almost 80% of fresh water availability. This can be purified and utilised for industrial needs. An example of recycled sewage water being used for industrial purpose is the 30 MLD waste water treatment facility at Gandhinagar and Anjar in Gujarat set up by Welspun India Ltd.

Another example is the proposal by Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation (NMMC) to recycle and reclaim sewage water treated at its existing facilities to meet the secondary purposes of both industries and residential complexes. In fact, residential complexes can similarly recycle and re-use their waste water for secondary purposes such as gardening.

Also, alternative rain water harvesting methods such as harvesting rain water from concrete surfaces using porous concrete can be used to supplement roof-top rain water harvesting, to help replenish ground water.

Community initiatives to supplement regular water supply: Initiatives such as community water storage and decentralised treatment facilities, including elevated water towers or reservoirs and water ATMs, based on a realistic understanding of the costs involved, can help support the city’s water distribution. Water towers or elevated reservoirs with onsite filters can also help optimise the space available for water distribution in congested cities. Water ATMs, which are automated water dispensing units that can be accessed with a smart card or an app, can ensure metered supply of safe water.

Testing and purification: With water contamination being a big challenge, the adoption of affordable and reliable multi-household water filter systems which are electricity free and easy to use can help, to some extent, access to safe drinking water at a domestic level. Also, the use of household water testing kits and the installation of water quality sensors on pipes, that send out alerts on water contamination, can create awareness of water contamination and drive suitable preventive steps.

Public awareness and use of technology: Public awareness campaigns, tax incentives for water conservation and the use of technology interfaces can also go a long way in addressing the water problem. For example, measures such as water credits can be introduced with tax benefits as incentives for efficient use and recycling of water. Similarly, government water apps, like that of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, can be used to spread tips on water saving, report leakage or send updates on water quality.

Collaborative approach: Finally, a collaborative approach like the adoption of a public-private partnership model for water projects can help. There are already examples of best practices here. For example, in Netherlands, water companies are incorporated as private companies, with the local and national governments being majority shareholders. Involving citizens through social business models for decentralised water supply, treatment or storage installations like water ATMs, as also the appointment of water guardians who can report on various aspects of water supply and usage can help in efficient water management. Grass-root level organizations could be partnered with for programmes to spread awareness on water safety and conservation.

For BASF, the proposed solutions are an extension of their close engagement with developing water management and water treatment solutions. The products developed specially for waste and drinking water treatment, such as Zetag® ULTRA and Magnafloc® LT, focus on ensuring sustainability, efficiency and cost effectiveness in the water and sludge treatment process.

BASF is also associated with operations of Reliance Industries’ desalination plant at Jamnagar in Gujarat.The thermal plant is designed to deliver up to 170,000 cubic meters of processed water per day. The use of inge® ultrafiltration technologies allows a continuous delivery of pre-filtered water at a consistent high-quality level, while the dosage of the Sokalan® PM 15 I protects the desalination plant from scaling. This combination of BASF’s expertise minimises the energy footprint of the plant and secures water supply independent of the seasonal fluctuations. To know more about BASF’s range of sustainable solutions and innovative chemical products for the water industry, see here.

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