The recent judgment delivered by a SCST court in the Hathras case has raised serious questions about the impartiality of India’s judiciary when it comes to the social status of victims. It is not the first time that the social background of victims has influenced the thinking of the judiciary, and this raises concerns about the principles of justice. In cases where the accused belong to ‘upper’ castes and the victims are from marginalized communities such as Dalits or Muslims, justice is often compromised.
The Hathras case, along with Khairlanji and Bilkis Bano cases, stands in stark contrast to the 2012 Nirbhaya case. In Nirbhaya’s case, all but one of the accused were awarded death sentences because of the severity of their crime. However, in the Hathras case, there was no such sense of outrage. Was it because the victim was a Dalit?
A study conducted by the National Law University, Delhi, in 2016 found that 75% of the convicts sentenced to death belonged to Dalit, other backward classes (OBC), and minority communities. But does the death sentence act as a deterrent in a society where misogyny and patriarchy are entrenched and encouraged? And does the collective and judicial conscience of society remain equally disturbed and shocked by every abhorrent crime, regardless of the victim’s social background?
The lack of structural measures aimed at gender sensitivity and representation has made it clear that the death penalty does not serve as a deterrent for heinous crimes in mature democracies, a democratic polity and society. Yet, the Indian judiciary continues to rely on the doctrine of “the collective conscience” as a basis for awarding death sentences. This practice has been in use since the famous Machhi Singh vs State of Punjab case of 1983, where the Supreme Court codified the circumstances under which death sentences could be awarded.
It is high time for India to introspect and evolve as a mature democracy by dispensing justice impartially and upholding the principles of equality and justice for all. The collective conscience of Indian society and the judiciary must not be selective based on caste, religion, gender, class, or any other social background. Only then can we truly claim to be a just and democratic society.
Machhi Singh vs State of Punjab
Criminal law, death penalty, sentencing guidelines
Brief: Machhi Singh vs State of Punjab is a landmark case in Indian criminal law that established a set of guidelines for determining the appropriateness of the death penalty in cases of extreme crimes. The guidelines take into account both the nature of the crime and the characteristics of the accused, and have since been widely adopted by Indian courts. The case is considered a model for other countries seeking to reform their criminal justice systems.