बचन सिंह बनाम पंजाब राज्य
| Citation | AIR 1982 SC 1325, (1982) 3 SCC 24 |
| Court | Supreme Court of India (Constitution Bench) |
| Date | 16 August 1982 |
| Year | 1982 |
| Bench | Y.V. Chandrachud CJ, P.N. Bhagwati, N.L. Untwalia, Syed Murtaza Fazal Ali, A.D. Koshal JJ. |
| Acts/Articles | Article 14, Article 19, Article 21, IPC Section 302, CrPC Section 354(3) |
| Category | Constitutional Law, Criminal Law |
Key Principle Established
Death penalty is constitutional but must be imposed only in the "rarest of rare" cases. Life imprisonment is the rule; death sentence is the exception.
The constitutional validity of the death penalty under Section 302 IPC was challenged. The question was whether death penalty as an alternative punishment for murder violates Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
By a 4:1 majority, the Constitution Bench upheld the constitutional validity of death penalty but established the “rarest of rare” doctrine:
Justice P.N. Bhagwati delivered a powerful dissent, arguing that the death penalty is unconstitutional as it violates Articles 14 and 21. He argued that the discretion vested in judges makes its application inherently arbitrary.
The “rarest of rare” doctrine remains the governing standard for death penalty in India. Every subsequent death sentence case applies the Bachan Singh framework. The judgment has been cited thousands of times and continues to shape India’s approach to capital punishment.
(1984) 3 SCC 243
Release of bonded labourers without rehabilitation is cruelty. The State must ensure identification, release AND rehabilitation of bonded labourers.
Read AnalysisAIR 1967 SC 1836
Right to travel abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21. Refusal or impounding of passport without following due process…
Read AnalysisAIR 1993 SC 1960
State is liable to pay compensation for custodial death as a public law remedy under Article 32/226, independent of any…
Read AnalysisThis judgment summary is for educational and research purposes. While care has been taken to accurately represent the ratio and findings, for authoritative reference always consult the original judgment text from official sources (SCC Online, AIR, Manupatra, or court websites).
22+ years of practice before Punjab & Haryana High Court and Supreme Court of India.