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 

Changing the conversation around mental health in rural India

Insights that emerged from discussions around mental health at a village this World Mental Health Day.

Questioning is the art of learning. For an illness as debilitating as depression, asking the right questions is an important step in social acceptance and understanding. How do I open-up about my depression to my parents? Can meditation be counted as a treatment for depression? Should heartbreak be considered as a trigger for deep depression? These were some of the questions addressed by a panel consisting of the trustees and the founder of The Live Love Lough Foundation (TLLLF), a platform that seeks to champion the cause of mental health. The panel discussion was a part of an event organised by TLLLF to commemorate World Mental Health Day.

According to a National Mental Health Survey of India 2015-16, conducted by the National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (NIMHANS), common mental disorders including depression, anxiety disorders and substance use disorders affect nearly 10% of the population, with 1 in 20 people in India suffering from depression. The survey reported a huge treatment gap, a problem that is spread far and wide across urban and rural parts of the country.

On 10th of October, trustees of the foundation, Anna Chandy, Dr. Shyam Bhat and Nina Nair, along with its founder, Deepika Padukone, made a visit to a community health project centre in Devangere, Karnataka. The project, started by The Association of People with Disability (APD) in 2010, got a much-needed boost after partnering with TLLLF 2 years ago, helping them reach 819 people suffering from mental illnesses and spreading its program to 6 Taluks, making a difference at a larger scale.


During the visit, the TLLLF team met patients and their families to gain insights into the program’s effectiveness and impact. Basavaraja, a beneficiary of the program, spoke about the issues he faced because of his illness. He shared how people used to call him mad and would threaten to beat him up. Other patients expressed their difficulty in getting access to medical aid for which they had to travel to the next biggest city, Shivmoga which is about 2 hours away from Davangere. A marked difference from when TLLLF joined the project two years ago was the level of openness and awareness present amongst the villagers. Individuals and families were more expressive about their issues and challenges leading to a more evolved and helpful conversation.

The process of de-stigmatizing mental illnesses in a community and providing treatment to those who are suffering requires a strong nexus of partners to make progress in a holistic manner. Initially, getting different stakeholders together was difficult because of the lack of awareness and resources in the field of mental healthcare. But the project found its footing once it established a network of support from NIMHANS doctors who treated the patients at health camps, Primary Healthcare Centre doctors and the ASHA workers. On their visit, the TLLLF team along with APD and the project partners discussed the impact that was made by the program. Were beneficiaries able to access the free psychiatric drugs? Did the program help in reducing the distance patients had to travel to get treatment? During these discussions, the TLLLF team observed that even amongst the partners, there was an increased sense of support and responsiveness towards mental health aid.

The next leg of the visit took the TLLLF team to the village of Bilichodu where they met a support group that included 15 patients and caregivers. Ujjala Padukone, Deepika Padukone’s mother, being a caregiver herself, was also present in the discussion to share her experiences with the group and encouraged others to share their stories and concerns about their family members. While the discussion revolved around the importance of opening up and seeking help, the team brought about a forward-looking attitude within the group by discussing future possibilities in employment and livelihood options available for the patients.

As the TLLLF team honoured World Mental Health day, 2017 by visiting families, engaging with support groups and reviewing the successes and the challenges in rural mental healthcare, they noticed how the conversation, that was once difficult to start, now had characteristics of support, openness and a positive outlook towards the future. To continue this momentum, the organisation charted out the next steps that will further enrich the dialogue surrounding mental health, in both urban and rural areas. The steps include increasing research on mental health, enhancing the role of social media to drive awareness and decrease stigma and expanding their current programs. To know more, see here.

This article was produced by the Scroll marketing team on behalf of The Live Love Laugh Foundation and not by the Scroll editorial team.