Every landmark judgment tests the internal logic of our legal system, and the Supreme Court’s decision in Waris v. State of Madhya Pradesh offers a compelling look at those hidden contradictions.
Let us visit a really important doctrine that is quite famous in our nation, i.e. The Rarest of Rare.
It basically says that ‘Death is the exception, and life imprisonment is the norm.’
The major precedent for this doctrine is Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab, it established with a 4:1 majority, the Supreme Court upheld that the death penalty is constitutional but crucially, it established that courts cannot hand down capital punishment arbitrarily.
Now it’s actually a lot complicated than it would seem, the judges need to actively balance between these points-
Nature of the crime & Motive,
Manner of commission & Magnitude of the crime,
Circumstances of the victim,
Aggravating and Mitigating circumstances of the accused,
Possibility of reform and rehabilitation,
Alternative of life imprisonment and a Special reason.
So, what’s the issue?
It’s highlighted in the case of Waris v. State of Madhya Pradesh.
The facts are as follows:
The accused was a man named Waris, aged 56,
He was Convicted for the sexual assault and murder (by throttling) of his 6-year-old stepdaughter.
What did the Judiciary do?
Trial Court sentenced him to Death Penalty,
Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore bench) upheld both the Conviction and Death Penalty.
But the 3-Judge Bench of Supreme Court, while upholding the conviction, commuted his Death penalty to Imprisonment for remainder of his natural life without remission.
That is exactly where the issue seems to be rising up.
A crime so heinous, and yet not constituting for the Rarest of Rare?
Let’s understand what reasoning Supreme court gave us to fathom with.
The main question was not whether crime was brutal or not, it was whether there was any past criminal record, and whether there was any chance of future rehabilitation? Essentially the framework that governs the doctrine.
The Supreme Court said that there were no past criminal records, and the conduct inside the prison was “satisfactory”, which was a crucial mitigating circumstance.
But is “satisfactory behaviour” enough mitigating circumstance that we completely overlook the heinous act and commute the death sentence?
Another reasoning for why he was not given the death penalty was because the State failed to prove how he is not capable for rehabilitation, but I pose a bigger question-
If the guilt is already established, and the case is being determined for the Rarest of Rare doctrine, why should the onus lie on State to prove the impossibility of rehabilitation, and why not have the criminal prove why he is capable of reform?
He did the wrongdoing, it was later proved in the court, why do we still expect state to pursue with additional proofs, which is near impossible to be so absolute that a death penalty can be given?
Critiques will naturally argue that it is impossible to prove that a person is capable of rehabilitation and it is absurd etc. but that is exactly what I am saying, if we can’t expect a person to prove why he can be rehabilitated, why are we expecting State to do the exact opposite which is equally impossible?
You can’t certainly prove any of the circumstance but if one party has to prove that regardless, so why not have the person who is already established guilty under the rule of law?
A person, in a fiduciary relationship, commits sexual assault and later kills the victim, who is a minor, refuses the crime and contests it in court, and later is proven guilty. And we look at his conduct in prison, where it’s basically impossible to do that act again, and say that he has “satisfactory” conduct. That is exactly where this case stirred heavy discussion.
And something I find contradictory is that he wasn’t sentenced to death penalty, however, he was sentenced to life imprisonment without remission, which means he will be in prison till death. So how exactly rehabilitation was questioned here then? If he will be living behind closed bars for rest of his life, why even pose the question of rehabilitation?
Is this not impliedly stating that the person is not capable of rehabilitation in the real world?
A person with no criminal history bombs a monument and kills various activists, media team, politicians etc. can’t have the defence of saying it was my first time.
And the last criticism that deserves to be addressed is Irreversibility. One may argue that death is permanent and that a later discovery of innocence would make the punishment impossible to undo. That is a valid concern. Honestly that is genuinely a good counter, but I am not here to defend capital punishment, I am writing it to criticize the existing framework in which it is permissible.
However, wrongful imprisonment can also inflict irreversible harm. The Constitution protects not merely survival, but the right to live with dignity, and no amount of compensation can truly restore years lost to wrongful imprisonment.
The possibility of error justifies strong safeguards, but whether it should be decisive in every sentencing determination remains a question.
The criticism is not limited to the outcome of any specific case. Rather, the deep inconsistencies in how the Rarest of Rare doctrine presently evaluates rehabilitation, allocates burden, and balances mitigating factors against exceptionally grave offences.
First and foremost, the onus to prove rehabilitation should be on the party, which is found guilty. Not to the person who is accused but is proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Second, even if there is a chance of rehabilitation, the gravity of the crime should not be sidelined. It should be assessed if the crime not extremely monstrous. If it was, for example, a rape and murder of a minor, the future possibility of rehabilitation should not be prioritized over the crime which was committed, but obviously not undermining the rehabilitation.
And what I strongly believe in is that any act, which blatantly undermines the autonomy of a living being, shall be tried under this doctrine.
Why do we need such aggravating circumstances to apply the doctrine?
We are in an ever-changing world, and recently we have seen a rise in feminism, so I think this is the perfect time to ask the question whether rape of an adult is not disturbing enough?
Have we grown “familiar” with such an act that we need additional circumstances to consider death penalty for the offender?
I asked you a lot of questions, and I hope you reflected back on them.
I say that we need to fundamentally rethink our priorities, but we are allowed to have contradictory opinions.
About the Author
Kaushal Ojha is a law student and an emerging legal writer who regularly publishes thought-provoking articles on significant legal issues, constitutional principles, landmark judicial decisions, and contemporary developments in law. His writings also explore personality development, critical thinking, social issues, and other subjects of public importance. Through his articles, he seeks to encourage independent thinking, constructive debate, and a deeper understanding of law and society.
