PUNISHMENT AND ITS KINDS BY - JANHAVI SHISODE
PUNISHMENT AND ITS KINDS
AUTHORED BY - JANHAVI SHISODE
I.
INTRODUCTION
A. Definition of Punishment
Punishment
has been defined and interpreted in various ways under criminal jurisprudence.
At its core, punishment refers to the imposition of a sanction or punitive
measure on an individual who has committed an offence or unlawful act, as per
established legal statutes.[1] It involves the intentional
infliction of pain or other consequences normally considered undesirable or
unpleasant, aimed at retribution for the offence.[2]
One perspective outlines punishment as a form of 'social retaliation' against
the violation of legal rules enacted to govern societal order and harmony. The core elements underlying the concept of
legal punishment entail that it must involve pain or other consequences
normally considered unpleasant for the offender, it must be for an actual or
supposed offence, it must be intentionally administered by someone other than
the offender, and it must be imposed and administered by an authority
constituted by a legal system against which the offence is committed.
The most widely cited theoretical
justification for punishment within the criminal justice system is utilitarian.
As per the utilitarian view, punishment is morally right and socially useful
when it promotes the greater societal good of happiness, well-being and welfare
by preventing future harm. Specifically, deterrent and preventive theories view
the purpose of punishment as utilitarian, aimed at deterring future criminal
behavior through fear of penalty, thereby preventing future crimes and
promoting societal order.[3] Similarly, reformative justifications view
punishment as a means to reform the offender into a law-abiding citizen for
greater societal good. On the other hand, retributivist theories provide a
deontological justification for punishment based on morality rather than social
utility or consequences. Retributivists argue that punishment of those who
violate legal rules and cause harm is intrinsically morally right and just,
regardless of whether it deters crime or reforms criminals. The degree of
blameworthiness and seriousness of the offence should proportionately match the
harshness of punishment.
Some scholars have synthesized these
perspectives to suggest that punishment serves multiple functions -
retributive, deterrent and reformative. The Indian Supreme Court has also
endorsed this integrative view, stating that punishment must provide a moral
lesson to wrong-doers, prevent recurrence of criminal behavior through fear of
penalty, and reform the offender into a socially responsible citizen through
corrective measures.[4] In
the Indian context, the concept of punishment finds mentions across various
legal statutes and judicial pronouncements. The Indian Penal Code 1860, the
guiding criminal statute, does not expressly define punishment but references
the imposition of penalties under legitimate authority for transgressions of
the law.[5]
Judicial decisions have affirmed that punishment is founded on public
necessity, societal defence, and prevention of like offenses in future through
deterrent effect.[6] At the
same time, certain guidelines limit punitive discretion and safeguard
offenders' rights - punishment must be proportionate, justified, humane and in
alignment with constitutional protections.[7]
Reform and rehabilitation are endorsed as essential functions of the penal
system aimed at social defense and resettlement.[8]
Therefore, in essence, within Indian
criminal jurisprudence, punishment refers to the intentional and legally
approved imposition of sanctions or consequences deemed unpleasant, on
offenders culpable of unlawful acts, serving retributive, deterrent and
reformative purposes for protection of societal order as per constitutional
guidelines. The type and quantum of punishment should correspond to the nature
and gravity of offense, blameworthiness of offender, and principles of
proportionality, justification, humanity and reformation.
B.
Historical Evolution of Punishment
The concept and practice of
punishment has evolved over time across human societies. In primitive tribal
communities, punishments were decided based on customs and traditions, often
with the twin aims of compensating the victim and pacifying anger to restore
harmony in social relations.[9]
Over time, organized religions prescribed moral codes of conduct, with divine
retributive punishments for violations. Similarly, in ancient kingdoms and
empires, the authority to punish wrongdoing resided with the ruler, aimed at
maintaining order and compliance with commands. In medieval Europe, punishments
became more institutionalized and brutal, often involving public torture and
executions. The establishment of laws and legal systems led to the state taking
over the authority to investigate crimes and determine punishments rather than
leaving it to victims and communities.
Enlightenment thinkers in the 18th century, such as Cesare Beccaria, Jeremy
Bentham and John Howard argued for proportion between crimes and punishments as
well as advocating for more humane prisons instead of harsh physical
punishments.[10] Their
theories and critiques pushed criminal justice reforms and changes in many
countries over the 19th and 20th centuries.
In the Indian subcontinent, ancient
Hindu scriptures laid down moral precepts and legal treatises like Manusmriti
classified wrongful acts and prescribed fines, mutilations and death as
punishments depending on the nature and circumstances of the crime. Islamic
rulers after the 12th century imposed punishments in accordance with Sharia law
for certain moral offenses and hudud crimes.[11]
The British colonial administration developed a hybrid legal system combining
English criminal law and Indian customary law, which relied heavily on
imprisonment for a wide range of offenses. After India's independence in 1947,
the Constitution enshrined certain fundamental rights and prohibited cruel and
unusual punishments under Article 21.[12]
It mandated humane prison conditions and correctional approaches aimed at
rehabilitation. The Indian Penal Code formulated under British rule continued
with modifications, while new legislation has expanded the range of punishments
available to courts. The Supreme Court and High Courts have also intervened
from time to time to check punishments seen as excessive and disproportionate.[13]
However, issues still remain with overcrowded prisons, long detentions without
trial and human rights violations.[14]
Reforms in substantive and procedural criminal law, prison conditions and
sentencing policies are still ongoing in India.
Thus, we can see how punishments and
attitudes towards them have transformed across different historical periods,
from religious and moral sanctions to brutal, public physical punishments to
standardized legal punishments that still retain vestiges of colonial laws. The
key developments have involved regulating the authority to impose punishments,
linking punishments to gravity of crimes, applying emerging human rights
frameworks and pushing for liberal reforms focusing on correction more than
just deterrence and retribution. Understanding this evolution can inform
contemporary debates around punishment theory and penal policies.
II.
ANCIENT AND DISCARDED MODES OF PUNISHMENT
A.
Corporal Punishment
1. Overview of Corporal Punishment
Corporal punishment involves inflicting physical pain
as a form of discipline or punishment.[15]
Historically, corporal punishment has been used in many cultures and contexts,
including in schools, judicial systems, prisons, and homes. However, views on
and legality of corporal punishment vary widely by country and context. In
India, corporal punishment remains legal in some contexts, though reforms have
aimed to limit its use. Corporal punishment of children in schools was banned
nationwide with the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE)
Act in 2009.[16]
However, enforcement remains inconsistent.[17]
Corporal punishment also remains lawful as a sentence in India's judicial
system under certain statutes. There have been calls from children's rights
advocates to ban all corporal punishment given evidence of physical and
psychological harm. However, many still view corporal punishment as an
effective means of discipline.[18]
·
Historical and
Cultural Context
The use of corporal punishment has a long history in
Indian culture, tracing back to ancient religious texts and practices that
advocated physical discipline of children and subordinates. Authority figures
such as parents, teachers, and kings were seen as duty-bound to punish
misbehavior physically in order to correct faults and ensure obedience. In this
cultural and historical context, corporal punishment came to be an accepted and
routine part of childrearing, education, the justice system, and more in India
over centuries. The belief behind this was that judicious physical punishment
out of a sense of duty would reform character, impart moral values, and
maintain social order. However, such punishment was intended to reform rather
than solely inflict pain or take revenge. Despite some calls for reform, these
traditional views continued to shape attitudes toward corporal punishment into
modern times.
·
Corporal
Punishment in Schools
With India's independence in 1947 and move toward
establishing constitutional rights, attitudes began shifting against
unregulated physical discipline. By the late 20th century, a children's rights
movement arose in India advocating for reforms to traditional corporal
punishment in schools. Evidence mounted globally on the ineffectiveness and
harms of school corporal punishment.In 2000, India's National Policy on
Education resolution first stated that corporal punishment would be disallowed,
though enforcement mechanisms remained lacking at state levels.[19]
Finally, India banned nationwide corporal punishment in schools under the 2009
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act (RTE).[20]
The RTE made education a fundamental right of children and prohibited physical
punishment or mental harassment.[21]
However, reports indicate uneven RTE implementation and corporal punishment
persists in many Indian schools despite the formal ban. A 2016 report found
over 70-80% of children still face some physical punishment at school. Reasons
include cultural acceptance, lack of reporting mechanisms, inadequate teacher
training in alternative discipline, and more. Advocates say more work is needed
to enforce the ban and change mindsets around discipline.
·
Judicial
Corporal Punishment
India retains corporal punishment, including flogging
and whipping, as a sentence under some laws for certain offenses. These laws
provide magistrates discretionary authority to order flogging, such as for
theft, intimidation, or vandalism.[22]
However, the Supreme Court has issued some guidelines for humane infliction per
human rights standards.[23]
Debates continue around retaining judicial corporal punishment. Supporters
argue it serves as an effective deterrent to crimes in the Indian context. The
Law Commission has also recommended expanding it to cover additional offenses
like domestic violence. However, the practice faces opposition from rights
groups. Opponents argue it violates human dignity, constitutional rights, and
India's treaty commitments. Though allowed under limited statutes, judicial
corporal punishment remains rarely practiced in India and some advocate for
full abolition per global trends. As such, its future remains uncertain between
traditional and modern viewpoints on state power to punish physically.
·
Domestic
Corporal Punishment
An area with minimal legal restrictions is the use of
corporal punishment in homes. Indian parents have traditionally held wide
latitude over discipline methods under personal laws. Physical punishment by
parents or guardians maintains social acceptance, though excess abuse remains
prohibited. Children's rights advocates have argued that allowing domestic
corporal punishment contradicts bans in schools or judicial systems. They note
global studies on developmental harms and limited evidence of benefits. A law
proposed in 2017 sought to ban domestic corporal punishment but faced criticism
as government overreach into family matters.[24]
Views remain mixed on whether legal reforms are warranted or would align with
Indian cultural context.
2. Forms of Corporal Punishment
Corporal punishment refers to the infliction of
physical pain as a measure of correction or punishment for an offence.[25] It aims to reform or deter the offender by
causing physical discomfort. In India, there is no statutory definition of
corporal punishment, but judicial precedence and policy documents have
elaborated on some of the most common forms.
·
Beating/Flogging
One the most prevalent form of corporal punishment in
India has been beating or flogging.[26] Typically, this involves striking the
offender on the buttocks or palms. While largely outlawed in modern
institutions, this practice continues illegally in some homes, schools, and
childcare institutions to varying degrees. In a landmark judgment in 2000, the
Supreme Court defined corporal punishment as "Doing an act by way of
beating, mutilating or torturing a child, or doing any other act which debases,
degrades or humiliates the child".[27] The Court declared that such punishment has
no legal sanction under Article 19(1)(a) or Article 21.[28]
·
Caning
Another common but prohibited form is caning, which
involves hitting the offender with a thin, bamboo cane on the arm, palm,
buttocks, or soles of the feet.[29] Caning is often seen as a harsher form of
punishment used in extreme circumstances like rape, robbery with violence, or
vandalism. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that inflicting this form of
punishment would be unconstitutional as it violates human dignity and the right
against torture.[30] The Bombay High Court has also struck down
prison guidelines permitting caning or whipping.[31] Hence, despite a history of implementation,
judicial opinion in India now concludes that caning is unjust and illegal.
·
Chaining/Fettering
Chaining or fettering involves physically restraining
the offender with iron chains and locks for prolonged periods. Historically,
this technique was used for disciplinary measure in prisons and asylums. The
extreme discomfort and restriction of movement was seen as an effective
deterrent. However, the Supreme Court has now categorized this as a violation
of personal liberty under Article 21.[32] It classifies chaining in prisons or asylums
as cruel, inhuman and unacceptable.[33] In another case dealing with handcuffing of
under-trial prisoners, the Court ordered that authorities must justify
imposition of fetters on reasonable grounds of security.[34] Hence, without due justification, routine
chaining is now viewed as unlawful by the courts.
·
Degrading
Modes of Punishment
In some cultures, corporal punishment
takes degrading or humiliating forms like stripping the offender publically or
blackening the face with charcoal. However, Article 21 guarantees the right to
live with human dignity - thus any punishment conflicting with human dignity is
unconstitutional.[35] Degrading punishment that affects prisoners'
self-respect or self-worth would violate Article 21.[36] In the 'strip-search' case, the Rajasthan
High Court asserted that such techniques outrage a prisoner's sense of decency
and self-respect under Article 21.[37] Constitutional protections now place strict
limits on punishments or correctional processes that debase offenders.
Thus, India's highest courts have
narrowed the scope of lawful corporal punishment, reasoning that provisions for
judicial oversight and human dignity imply that only moderate correction, not
torture or trauma, are warranted by the Constitution. The Court has
consistently ruled that extreme physical or psychological hardship have no
place in India's penal laws or in regulating prisoner behaviour. These landmark
judicial opinions reflect the State's duty of providing inmates humane living
conditions regardless of their crimes.
Critics however argue that barbaric corporal punishment still prevails
due to administrative apathy, lack of accountability and the inhumane mindset
of some prison authorities.[38]
A. BANISHMENT AND EXILE
Banishment
refers to the punishment where an individual is forced to leave a certain geographical
area, usually the region where they live or the country itself.[39]
Exile is a similar form of punishment where an individual is expelled from
their native region or country, typically on a long-term or permanent basis.[40]
Both banishment and exile involve the compelled removal of a person from a
particular place. Historically, banishment and exile have been used as forms of
punishment in various cultures and jurisdictions. Notable examples include
Ovid's exile from Rome ordered by Emperor Augustus in 8 AD and Napoleon's
banishment to the island of Elba in 1814 after his defeat at the Battle of
Leipzig.[41]
In the Indian context, provisions
related to banishment and exile as legal punishments can be found in several
laws. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 empowers State Governments to issue
orders for externment or removal of individuals from a specified local area as
a preventative measure.[42]
State-level police acts such as the Bombay Police Act, 1951 also contain
sections related to externment and banishment orders.[43]
Certain tribal and regional customary laws in India also include exile and
banishment as punishments for offenses against social or communal norms.[44]
The Constitution of India under Article 19(1)(e) provides for the right to
reside and settle in any part of India as a fundamental right. At the same
time, Article 19(5) permits the State to impose reasonable restrictions on this
right in the interest of general public. The constitutional validity of
punitive banishment and exile has been examined by Indian courts in multiple
cases over the years.
In the case of Pradeep Ram v. State
of Jharkhand (2011), the Jharkhand High Court struck down Section 17(n) of the
Jharkhand Excise Act which provided for externment of bootleggers from the
local area.[45] The
Court held that punitive banishment amounted to a violation of Article 19(1)(e)
rights unless it could be shown to be a reasonable restriction under Article
19(5). Since the State could not satisfactorily establish reasonableness, the
provision for banishment was read down by the Court. Similarly, in Laxman Naik
v. State of Orissa (1994), the Orissa High Court set aside an externment order
passed by a District Magistrate since the order lacked adequate reasons and
affected the petitioner’s Article 19(1)(e) rights.[46]
On the other hand, the apex court has upheld externment orders in cases where
sufficient justification regarding potential threats to public safety and order
were provided, such as in Sardar Ali v. State of Maharashtra (1999).[47]
The issue of banishment orders
disproportionately targeting marginalized communities has also been
highlighted. In Budhan Choudhary v. State of Bihar (1955), the Patna High Court
pointed out that sections pertaining to externment in the Bihar Police
Regulations were often arbitrarily used against members of tribal communities,
contravening Article 15 prohibition against discrimination.[48]
In recent years, human rights groups have advocated against the use of punitive
banishment arguing that it impinges upon various fundamental rights while also
lacking penological justification.[49]
However, legislative provisions for preventative externment of individuals
still exist in various State laws, upheld by courts when exercized judiciously.
In appropriate cases, banishment continues to remain a measure available to law
enforcement agencies citing maintenance of public order as grounds for
reasonable restriction under Article 19. Nevertheless, the validity of orders
resulting in permanent exile/banishment as a punitive sanction remains
constitutionally suspect.
B. Trial by Ordeal
Trial by ordeal was a method of trial which was
prevalent in ancient and medieval India, where an accused person was subjected
to risky and painful tests to determine their innocence or guilt. If the person endured the test without much
harm, they were declared innocent, however if they failed, the person was found
guilty.[50] This method was based on the religious belief
that God would intervene and protect the innocent from harm.[51] Various kinds of ordeals were prescribed for
different offences and for persons of different castes. Common ordeals seen in
India included the ordeal by balance, where the accused was weighed against
stones/metal to test their innocence;
the ordeal by fire, where the accused had to hold hot metal rods in
their hands or walk on fire;[52] and the ordeal by water, where the accused
was thrown into a river and it was believed that an innocent person would sink
and guilty would float.[53] There are many references which indicate that
trial by ordeal was practiced across ancient and medieval India - from the Laws
of Manu, stories in Buddhist Jatakas, accounts by ancient travellers and
historians like Al Biruni, to inscriptions and village records from the Chola
dynasty in Tamil Nadu.
Under
Islamic rule from 12th-18th century, trial by ordeal particularly became an
instrument of oppression and injustice against disprivileged groups like
low-caste Hindus and women.[54] Foreign travellers like Ibn Batuta and
Francois Bernier give graphic accounts of how women were subjected to painful
tests during trials for witchcraft, adultery or other alleged crimes, based
solely on suspicion or hearsay evidence.[55] However, there are also a few instances where
such trials did lead to delivering justice, for example during the reign of Firoz Shah Tughlaq when a
minister facing false charges underwent the ordeal and came out unharmed,
proving his innocence. During the 18th
century, with the rise in humanist and rational ideas promoted by thinkers and
reformers like Raja Ram Mohan Roy, trial by ordeal came to be increasingly
criticized as irrational and unjust. In
1864, the colonial government issued an order abolishing ordeals in the
provinces under its rule.[56]
Finally in 1872, trial by ordeal
was banned in all native states of India as well by the Ordeals Abolition
Act. However some scholars argue that
isolated instances of extrajudicial ordeals may have continued informally,
particularly in remote villages where traditional beliefs persisted.[57]
In modern India, subjecting an
accused to any life-threatening or dangerous physical test during legal
proceedings would violate constitutional guarantees protecting life, liberty
and human dignity under Articles 14, 19 and 21.
It would also contravene criminal procedure safeguards ensuring humane
and ethical conduct during investigation and trial, like Sections 330-331 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860 which make it a punishable offence to cause hurt for
the purpose of extorting confession.
Thus while beliefs in divine justice and karmic retribution still
prevail in Indian culture and thought, they find no place in the current legal
system which upholds rule of law, principles of natural justice, and
objectivity in dispensing justice.[58]
III.
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
A. DEFINITION AND RATIONALE
Capital
punishment, also known as the death penalty, refers to the state-sanctioned
practice of putting a person to death as punishment for a crime. It is regarded
as the most severe form of punishment as it involves taking away the fundamental
right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.[59] The
term “capital” in capital punishment comes from the Latin word “capitalis”
meaning “of the head”, referring to execution by beheading.[60] Today,
hanging and shooting are the most common methods of execution in countries
where the death penalty is practiced. Lethal injection is also used in some
countries like the United States.[61]
The primary rationale given in favor
of capital punishment is retribution and just deserts. Supporters argue that
those who commit particularly heinous crimes like premeditated murder, deserve
the most severe punishment available. Capital punishment is regarded as what
the offender deserves or merits for the harm they have caused through willful
criminal action. The deterrence rationale is another oft-cited justification
for the imposition of capital punishment.[62]
Here, the underlying premise is that the prospect of being executed for
committing serious offenses like murder serves as an effective deterrent, causing
potential offenders to refrain from resorting to such acts due to the fear of
facing the death penalty. Whether capital punishment yields any deterrent
effect in reality remains arguable and widely debated.[63],,
Incapacitation or permanent elimination
of offenders from society is put forth as another rationale for the death
penalty. Execution permanently prevents capital offenders like serial killers
or terrorists from committing further crimes, thereby stopping recidivism and
providing definitive protection to society against them. However, life
imprisonment without the possibility of parole also effectively serves this
purpose of incapacitating dangerous criminals.[64]
Retribution demands that punishment for a crime should be commensurate with the
offense. It is debatable whether deprivation of life, regardless of the
severity of the offense, accords with principles of proportionality fundamental
to any theory of punishment.[65],
There are also concerns over whether human beings should assume the moral authority
to deliberately take the life of another, even for narrow societal purposes.
In India, the death penalty is
prescribed as a punishment under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and various other
legislations. However, the "rarest of rare cases" doctrine laid down
by the Supreme Court implies that capital punishment should only to be awarded
for extraordinary crimes where alternative options of punishment are
"unquestionably foreclosed".[66]
As per "The Death Penalty India Report" published in May 2016 by
National Law University, Delhi, over 60% of death sentences imposed between
2000-2015 by trial courts were eventually acquitted by higher courts, throwing
into question whether death penalty serves any penological purpose when there
is a high rate of erroneous conviction. Hence, whether retention or abolition
would better serve public interest and the ends of justice remains a complex
question. The Law Commission of India in its 2015 Report has also recommended
abolition of the death penalty for all crimes in India, except
terrorism-related offenses and waging war.
Overall, in the context of punishment
and sentencing, capital punishment represents the most extreme expression of
the state’s retributive power over individuals. Its foundational premises
around deterrence, proportionality and incapacitative needs remain actively
contested across jurisdictions. Within India’s legal framework, its selective
application in line with Constitutional safeguards also continues to be a
jurisprudential challenge.
B. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES
In India,
references to the death penalty date back to ancient times when punishments
were grounded in the Hindu Code of Manu. Manu prescribed the death sentence for
a range of crimes including murder, adultery, perjury, and theft. During the Maurya
dynasty era between 320 BC to 185 BC, the concept of punishment became more
developed and organized within a complex judicial system overseen by the king.[67] Severe
penalties ranging from fines to mutilation to death were levied for offenses
against property and persons. Laws and judgments made under Chandragupta Maurya
and Ashoka mention several crimes punishable by death.[68]
Through the medieval era after the collapse of the Mauryas, capital punishment
remained an accepted practice under rulers from Sultanate and Mughal periods.
Though some Sultans experimented with substituting the death penalty with fines
and flogging, it was applied relatively frequently and liberally for crimes
jeopardizing the ruler's authority. Under the Mughals, offenses regarded as
Hudud or those mentioned in the Quran explicitly as warranting execution saw
increasingly harsh application of death sentences. Methods were often violent
as a means to deter rebellion against the empire's authority.
The early nineteenth century saw major
legal reforms under the British colonial regime. In 1833, William Bentinck
abolished Sati, which prescribed burning or burying alive of widows. In 1837,
officials also ratified laws making it more difficult to impose capital
punishment and allowing more leniency for juvenile offenders between the age of
12 to 18 years.[69]
However, the Indian Penal Code drafted in 1860 retained capital punishment
under Section 302 for murder alongside other provisions imposing the death
penalty for crimes against the state. Over the following decades, the lower age
was raised back to 18 and all mandatory death penalty laws were made
discretionary by the early 20th century.
Post independence, India retained
capital punishment as an available penalty though committed to only selective
application after C.H. Alexandrowicz's argued before the country's law
commission that complete abolition would not conduce social defense in India.
The death penalty could be imposed for murder, abetting suicide, treason,
espionage, attempt on President or Governor's life, and certain military crimes
during wartime under the IPC and the 1950 Army, Navy and Air Force Acts. Over
the past decades, Indian jurisprudence surrounding the death penalty has
evolved significantly with pivotal judgements passed in landmark cases. In
1955's State of Madras v. V.G. Row,[70]
the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty in India
but called for the "special reasons rule" necessitating detailed
explanation by lower courts on choosing capital punishment over life
imprisonment. Further rulings like 1978's Rajendra Prasad v. State of Uttar
Pradesh[71]
limited applicability of the death sentence to only the "rarest of rare
cases" under India's developing human rights framework.
Most recently, ongoing public
interest litigation has put a renewed spotlight on various aspects of capital
punishment such as inordinate delays in carrying out executions. In 2014, India
voted against a UN General Assembly draft resolution calling for abolishing the
death penalty globally, but the Law Commission's 2015 report pointed out
inconsistencies in application of "rarest of rare doctrine" and
problems with administering the sentence., Overall, the trajectory indicates a
cautious yet more principled and sparing use for this most extreme punishment.
C. CONTEMPORARY DEBATES
In India, the death penalty is prescribed for offenses
like murder, waging war against the government, abetting mutiny actually
committed, giving false evidence upon which an innocent person suffers death,
and repeat offenses under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS)
Act.[72]
However, there have been calls to abolish capital punishment completely. Those
in favor argue that it acts as a deterrent while critics state that there is no
conclusive evidence to support this claim. There are also arguments around it
being an inhumane form of punishment as well as concerns around its arbitrary
application.
·
Deterrence
Value
The key
argument presented in favor of continuing capital punishment is its perceived
value as a unique deterrent i.e. the possibility of being sentenced to death
deters people from committing serious offenses like murder, acts against the
state etc. Supporters argue that the severity of the punishment makes potential
criminals think twice before undertaking such acts. There is also the belief
that it prevents convicts who receive a life sentence from repeating offenses
in prisons if they are kept alive.[73]
However, most penological experts
argue that there is no definitive evidence to conclusively establish capital
punishment’s deterrence value compared to punishments like life imprisonment.[74]
Critics point to research indicating that states and countries that enforce
capital punishment do not necessarily see a visible decline in crimes that call
for applying the death penalty. For instance, a 2012 National Research Council
report in the USA did not establish any significant deterrent effect.[75]
Similarly in India, there are diverging views on whether applying the death
sentences prescribed in law deters terrorism or drug trafficking.[76]
The Law Commission of India, in its 2015 report, also concluded that there is
no proof to suggest that the death penalty has a uniquely deterring effect on
potential offenders in the country.
·
Inhumane Punishment
Opponents of capital punishment argue that putting
someone to death is an inhumane form of punishment that goes against basic
human rights principles. This involves arguments against the morality or ethics
of sentencing someone to death irrespective of the severity of their crimes.
There are additional concerns around how convicts on death row typically spend
years going through exhaustive appeals thereby dealing with intense
psychological trauma in the process. Critics argue that the additional years
spent waiting for pending execution after court procedures get over amounts to
mental cruelty. In India, such concerns around mental trauma and agony prompted
the Supreme Court to lay down stringent conditions for carrying out the death
penalty in the case of Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India.[77]
This included taking immediate steps to process mercy petitions, allowing
convicts to physically meet family frequently etc. However, penological experts
argue that humanizing the process does little to address whether capital
punishment should exist at all.
·
Arbitrary
Application
Another area of criticism is based on research
indicating apparent subjectivity and inconsistencies in how capital punishment
is awarded. Opponents argue that application of the death penalty appears
arbitrary without a consistent framework for determining what constitutes the
“rarest of rare” criteria for offenses that call for the punishment under
Indian statutes.[78] There
are statistics indicating inconsistencies across the country when it comes to
prosecution under special security laws as opposed to civilian laws for crimes
of similar gravity. There is also criticism around inadequate representation
and systematic bias that members of marginalized socio-economic groups may face
in trying to avoid capital punishment for applicable crimes. To address such
concerns around arbitrary application, penological experts and groups like
Amnesty India have called for an immediate moratorium on capital punishment as
the first step, followed by steps to move towards complete abolishment.
However, whether the Indian state agrees to such proposals remains debated.
IV.
IMPRISONMENT
A. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT
Imprisonment
as a form of punishment has existed since ancient times, however, the modern
prison system and the concept of imprisonment as a principal punishment for
crimes has developed over several centuries across societies. In early
civilizations, prisons served mainly to detain accused people awaiting trial or
debtors until they paid their dues; long-term imprisonment for punishment was
rare. The modern prison emerged in Europe and North America in the late 18th
and early 19th centuries as a more humanitarian alternative to cruel physical
punishments of the past.[79]
In India, imprisonment has been
used as a form of punishment since ancient times.[80] References
to imprisonment as a form of punishment are found in the Manusmriti and
Arthashastra. However, prisons served more as detention centers than places for
long-term incarceration. Physical punishments such as mutilation, whipping and
execution were more common.[81] During the
Delhi Sultanate and Mughal rule, imprisonment remained a minor punishment along
with fines, whipping, mutilation and execution depending on the crime and
social status of the offender. Mughal rulers did establish some rudimentary
prisons but they remained temporary holding centers rather than correctional
institutions.[82]
It was during British colonial rule
that the modern prison system developed in India. As the British expanded their
territorial control, they felt the need for an organized system to detain
rebels, troublemakers and criminals in secure facilities governed by formal
procedures and regulations. The Indian jails during early British rule were in
an appalling condition - overcrowded, lacking hygiene and amenity. After the
1857 revolt, the British government implemented several reforms to improve
prison administration in terms of healthcare, discipline, reformation programs
and parole systems.[83]
By the late 19th century, prisons in British India developed into
well-functioning institutions for punishment and correction along the lines of
emerging modern penology. However, certain outdated practices inherited from
the native justice system continued in Indian prisons during British rule such
as fetters and whipping which were seen as barbaric in Britain itself.[84]
The system also came under criticism for poor segregation, limited
rehabilitation efforts and excessive state coercion. Several commissions
pointed out deficiencies and recommended reforms but lack of finance inhibited
prisons from living up to their full potential. Nevertheless, prisons had
established themselves as the preeminent form of punishment in colonial India
by the early 20th century.
After independence, prison reforms
received fresh momentum aligned with the correctional philosophy outlined in
the Indian Constitution and guided by international standards.[85]
Several committees in the post-independence era have critically evaluated
Indian prisons and recommended reforms related to living conditions, staffing,
incarceration alternatives and rehabilitation programs. Recent policy reports
have stressed issues of overcrowding, understaffing, poor hygiene and lack of
reformative opportunities.[86]
Addressing these concerns remains vital for Indian prisons to fulfill their
purpose as places of correction rather than deterioration. While progress has
been made over the decades, prisons in India continue to face systemic
challenges typical of developing countries in implementing reform programs on
scale. Nevertheless, imprisonment remains central to India's penal system
backed by policy directives as well as public sentiment. Thus, we see that
imprisonment as a systematic form of punishment has had a relatively recent
history in India, introduced and developed formally under British colonial
administration based on modern notions of incarceration. In the
post-independence period, Indian prisons have strived to reform themselves
according to the rehabilitative ideal while grappling with longstanding issues.
The trajectory going forward involves strengthening reformative efforts and
humanizing prison conditions in keeping with a progressive correctional ethos.
B. TYPES OF IMPRISONMENT
Under the Indian Penal Code 1860 and Code of Criminal
Procedure 1973, courts can award various types of imprisonment sentences to
offenders convicted of crimes depending on factors like the nature and gravity
of offense. The major types of imprisonment sentences in India are:
·
Simple
Imprisonment
Simple imprisonment involves confinement of the
offender in a prison with or without hard labor for the entirety of sentence
awarded by court. It does not impose any additional restraints on prisoners
beyond restricting personal liberty inside the prison. Simple imprisonment
cannot exceed 3 months as per Section 53 of IPC except under special laws.
Courts generally award simple imprisonment for minor offenses like petty theft,
minor assault etc.
·
Rigorous
Imprisonment
Rigorous imprisonment requires offenders to undertake
hard and painful labor during their confinement as part of punishment. The
prison authorities assign rigorous and difficult physical work to such
prisoners on a daily basis. The labor is aimed at reform and rehabilitation of
the offenders. Rigorous imprisonment can range from 3 months to lifetime
depending on the severity of crime.[87]
·
Imprisonment
for Life
Imprisonment for life refers to a prison sentence that
lasts until the death of the prisoner. It means incarceration of the convict
for the remainder of his natural life.[88]
However, prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment are eligible for premature
release or remission after serving minimum 14 years in prison as per policy.
Habitual offenders involved in severe crimes like murder, rape etc attract
imprisonment for life.
·
Imprisonment
for Default
This imprisonment is imposed in case of non-payment of
fines by offenders or failure to furnish security amount as required by court.
The term of such imprisonment depends on the amount of fine imposed and is
specified under Section 65 to 70 of IPC. It usually runs concurrently with the
substantive sentence term and cannot exceed 1 quarter of maximum imprisonment
term for that offense.
·
Simple and
Rigorous Imprisonment Concurrently
Courts can
direct that multiple sentences of simple and rigorous imprisonment imposed on a
convict run concurrently rather than successively.[89] It means
the sentences partially overlap during execution instead of running separately
after completion of the other. This generally done to reduce unduly long prison
terms.
The above imprisonment types aim to
cover the spectrum of punishment options available to courts for imposing on
offenders convicted of crimes under the Indian Penal Code. They provide courts
the discretion to account for various factors in a specific case like offense
severity, criminal history, good behavior etc while determining suitable
imprisonment punishments.
V.
REHABILITATION
AND REFORMATION AS A CORRECTION METHOD
Rehabilitation
and reformation are widely recognized as important goals and methods of
punishment and corrections within the criminal justice system in India and
around the world. The aim is to enable offenders to become productive members
of society after serving their sentences.[90]
Rehabilitation programs in prisons focus on providing education, vocational
training, counseling, and opportunities for self-improvement to inmates. The
programs target the various social, psychological, vocational, educational, and
personal issues that may have contributed to criminal behavior in the first
place. As the Supreme Court has observed, "Reformation and rehabilitation
of the convicts and prisoners have to be attended to in the present set-up of
the prisons."[91]
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to live with human
dignity, which applies even to prison inmates.[92]
Rehabilitation and reformation allow prisoners to regain their human dignity
and become functioning members of society after release.
·
Evolution of
the Concept in India
The origins
of rehabilitation and reformation as goals of punishment in India can be traced
back to the Nineteenth Century reforms in the British prison system in India under
officers like Alexander Maconochie, Walter Crofton and Frederick Hill who
introduced the Irish 'progressive stage system' of prisoner rehabilitation.
Post-independence, the First Five Year Plan (1951-56) prioritized prison
reforms to enable "correction and rehabilitation of offenders as useful
and self-respecting members of society." The Mulla Committee Report of
1983 comprehensively reviewed prison laws, administration and reforms. It made
valuable recommendations for rehabilitation programs including education,
vocational training, work programs, wage payments, after-care of released
prisoners, institutionalization of probation, and parole system.[93] The
1987 National Seminar on Prison Reform also focused extensively on
rehabilitative aspects and correctional strategies.[94] It
paved the way for the All India Committee on Jail Reforms of 1988-89 (popularly
known as the Justice Krishna Iyer Committee) that gave further momentum to
rehabilitation ideals.
The Supreme Court has also through
progressive interpretation advanced rehabilitation jurisprudence. In Prem
Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration,[95]
the Supreme Court held that handcuffing prisoners violated their fundamental
rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21. It noted that the basic spirit underlying
penology must be rehabilitation of offenders. In 2014, in Vijay Singh v. State
of Uttarakhand,[96] the
Court again stressed the reformative theory and need for rehabilitation.
·
Rehabilitation Efforts in Practice
Prison
authorities across India have introduced various rehabilitative and reformatory
programs over the years including educational programs, vocational training
programs, counseling programs, meditation and yoga classes, sports
opportunities, prison industries and manufacturing work, arts and craft production,
music and drama training, library facilities, adult literacy classes etc. For
example, the Open Jail in Delhi has facilities like college education, garment
printing units, carpentry training, cattle rearing options etc. to equip
inmates with skills for leading normal lives after release. Community
after-care services upon an inmate's release are crucial for sustaining
rehabilitation and preventing recidivism or relapse into crime. The Probation
of Offenders Act, 1958 provides a legal basis for probation work in India.
State governments collaborate with NGOs to run counselling centres, provide
vocational training & job opportunities, set up shelters and halfway homes
etc. to help ex-convicts settle down in society again. Parole and furlough regulations
also help maintain inmates' social ties.
Despite efforts, major systemic gaps
remain in translating rehabilitation policies into tangible action.[97]
Lack of appropriate staff and budget constraints undermine effective
implementation. Further issues like over-crowding, poor living conditions, lack
of hygiene, inadequate medical care, incidents of violence, torture, abuse etc.
still plague prisons and turn them into breeding grounds of more bitterness,
hatred and criminalization rather than correctional facilities. Reforming
prisons themselves remain imperative for meaningful inmate reform.[98]
The approach also remains punitive rather than corrective. Additionally, social
stigma towards ex-convicts hampers their resettlement and chance of starting
afresh without recidivism.
·
Potential Improvements
In recent times, human rights groups, activists and
legal experts have put forward constructive recommendations to strengthen
rehabilitative approach.[99] These include -
1. Expanding
range and coverage of rehabilitative programs tailored to needs of different
prisoner groups.
2. Boosting
budget to improve prison infrastructure, facilities and fill staffing gaps.
3. Fashioning
prisons as self-sustaining 'production centres’ via corporate tie-ups and
partnerships. Prison manufacturing and agriculture can fund rehabilitation
initiatives.
4. Leveraging
technology for reforms in areas like education, telemedicine services, parole processing
etc.
5. Promoting
community participation and public awareness to facilitate social reintegration
of released prisoners.
6. Strengthening
after-care support system with more halfway homes and employment assistance.
7. Encouraging
positive prisoner behaviour via incentives, graded privileges and recognition
schemes.
8. Ensuring
robust grievances redressal systems against rights violations.
9. Undertaking
regular evaluation of progress made and impact on recidivism rates.
[1] H.L.A. Hart, Punishment and
Responsibility (1968). Available at: https://bit.ly/3Xhn8et (Last visited: December
12, 2023).
[2] John Kleinig, Punishment and Desert
(1973). Available at: https://nyupress.org/9780814781282/punishment-and-desert/
(Last visited: December 12, 2023).
[3] Johannes Andenaes, "General
Prevention Revisited: Research and Policy Implications," 66 Journal of
Criminal Law & Criminology 338 (1975).
[7] Vishnu Dutt Sharma v. State of HP,
(2009) 13 SCC 705; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248.
[9] Gerber, Rudolph Joseph.
"Historic Development of Punishment." Journal of Criminal Law and
Criminology (1931-1951) 28, no. 4 (1937): 472-82.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1137481 (last visited December 12, 2023).
[10] Blom-Cooper, Louis.
"Progressive Punishment: An Examination of the Decline of Penal
Brutality." Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 7, no. 3 (1987): 341–53.
https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/7.3.341.
[11] Hardy, P. "Modern European and
Muslim Explanations of Punishment in Islam." The Muslim World 59, no. 3?4
(1969): 274-89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1478-1913.1969.tb02632.x.
[13] Krishnan, Jayanth K. "Social
Policy Advocacy and Litigation in India: Developing a Complementary
Paradigm." Journal of Law and Social Policy 13, no. 6 (2007): 1-32.
[14] Singh, Pradyumna. "Human
Rights in India: Problems and Perspectives." Indian Journal of Criminology
26, no. 1-2 (1998): 33-45.
[15] Vinita Andotra & Syed
Shahanwajuddin, "To Be or Not to Be: Examining Corporal Punishment in
Schools in India", The International Education Journal: Comparative
Perspectives 18, no.3 (2020): 55, https://openjournals.library.sydney.edu.au/index.php/IEJ/article/view/14177
(last visited Dec 12, 2023).
[16] The Right of Children to Free and
Compulsory Education Act, No. 35 of 2009, India Code (2009), sec. 17,
https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/1362?locale=en.
[17] Human Rights Watch, India: Failures
in Implementing Right to Education Act (2014),
https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/04/01/india-failures-implementing-right-education-act
(last visited Dec 12, 2023).
[18] Nalini Ravindran, "Why India
Needs to Outright Ban Corporal Punishment at Home", The Wire, Nov 20,
2018,
https://thewire.in/society/why-india-needs-to-outright-ban-corporal-punishment-at-home
(last visited Dec 12, 2023).
[19] National Policy on Education 1986,
modified 1992, sec. 5.6, https://www.education.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/upload_document/npe.pdf.
[22] The Whipping Act of 1909, No. 4 of
1909, India Code (1909),
http://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/A1909-04.pdf.
[24] The Protection of Children from
Corporal Punishment Bill, 2017, http://www.prsindia.org/uploads/media//draft/Protection%20of%20Children%20from%20Corporal%20Punishment%20Bill,%202017.pdf.
[25] Gaurav Dhamija, “Law Relating to
Corporal Punishment” (2013) 8(10) The Lex-Warrier: Online Law Journal 31.
[29] Rachel Baskerville, “Corporal
Punishment of Children: A Nonviolent Approach to Ending Physical Punishment of
Children Globally” (2016) 13(1) Journal of Legal Anthroplogy 21.
[39] Robert Ellis, “On Banishment,” Res
Publica 28, no. 4 (2022): 347–66, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-021-09532-5,
accessed December 12, 2023.
[40] Amy Maguire and Liz Wall, “The
Banishment of Australian Citizens as Punishment: Unconstitutional or a Matter
of International Law?,” Melbourne University Law Review 44, no. 2 (2020):
463–514.
[41] Philip G. Dwyer, “Napoleon
Bonaparte as Hero and Saviour: Image, Rhetoric and Behaviour in the
Construction of a Legend,” French History 18, no. 4 (December 2004): 379–403,
https://doi.org/10.1093/fh/18.4.379.
[44] Majlis Manch and Sujata Gothoskar,
“A Critical Evaluation Of Laws And Policies Against Honour Killings And Crimes
In India And The Way Forward,” Socio Legal Review 15, no. 1 (2019): 137–65.
[49] Bombay High Court Scraps Law
Allowing Banishment of Accused, The Wire, March 12, 2019,
https://thewire.in/law/bombay-high-court-scraps-law-allowing-banishment-of-accused,
accessed December 12, 2023.
[50] Jain M.P., Outlines of Indian Legal
and Constitutional History (6th edition), LexisNexis, Gurgaon, 2009 p. 237.
[51] Harris, Jonathan Gil, “The Truth
About ‘Trial by Ordeal’”, The Wilson Quarterly, Vol. 17, No. 3, 1993, p. 83.
JSTOR [https://www.jstor.org/stable/40258972, last visited Dec 12, 2023].
[52] Sengupta Padmini, “Oaths, Ordeals
and Witchcraft: Tribal Custom as Crime in early 20th century Chotanagpur” in
Anand A. Yang (ed) Crime and Criminality in British India, Arizona Press, 1985,
p. 264.
[53] Medhi, Konika “Superstitious
Justice: A Study of Witch Trials in Assam”, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol
XLVIII, No. 20, 2013, p. 56. JSTOR
[https://www.jstor.org/stable/23527448, last visited Dec 12, 2023].
[54] Hasan S. Nurul, “Ordeal as an
Instrument of Proof and Justice in Early Muslim India”, Islamic Studies, Vol.
5, No. 1, 1966, pp. 51-64. JSTOR [https://www.jstor.org/stable/20832725, last
visited Dec 12, 2023].
[55] Ibn Battuta, Travels in Asia and
Africa 1325-1354 tr. and selected by H.A.R Gibb, George Routledge and Sons Ltd,
London, 1946, p. 212; Bernier F., “Travels in the Mogul Empire A.D. 1656–1668”
tr. by A. Constable, 2nd revised edition, Oxford Univ. Press, London, 1916, p.
324.
[56] Stokes E., “Hindu Law Books:
Opinions on the Abolition of Ordeal”, Madras Quarterly Journal of Medical
Science, 1865-6, p. 26.
[57] Crooke W., Religion and Folklore of
Northern India, 2nd Edition, Oxford University Press, Delhi, 1926, p. 9.
[58] Dasgupta Sherna, “Do the Guilty Always
Get Away: Measuring Inequities in Traffic Court Sanctions”, Current Sociology,
July 2011, Vol. 59(4), p. 476, Sage Journals
[https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0011392111400853, last visited
Dec 12, 2023].
[60] Cornell Center on the Death Penalty
Worldwide, "Death Penalty Database: Method of Execution", available
at https://www.deathpenaltyworldwide.org/method-of-execution.cfm (last visited
Dec. 12, 2023).
[62] Isaac Ehrlich, “The Deterrent
Effect of Capital Punishment: A Question of Life and Death”, American Economic
Review 65, no. 3 (1975): 397–417.
[63] John J. Donohue & Justin
Wolfers, “Uses and Abuses of Empirical Evidence in the Death Penalty Debate”,
Stanford Law Review 58, no. 3 (2005): 791–846.
[64] John J. Donohue, “Capital
Punishment in Connecticut, 1973-2007: A Comprehensive Evaluation from 4686
Murders to One Execution”, Stanford Law Review 58, no. 5 (2006): 1615–1698.
[65] Jeffrey Reiman, “Justice,
Civilization and the Death Penalty: Answering van den Haag”, Philosophy &
Public Affairs 14, no. 2 (1985): 115-148.
[67] Shashank Shekhar, "Capital
Punishment in Ancient India and Its Rationale", International Journal of
Applied Research 2016; 2(3): 740-741, 31 March 2016
[69] Elizabeth Kolsky, "The
Colonial Rule of Law and the Legal Regime of Exception: Frontier 'Fanaticism'
and State Violence in British India", The American Historical Review,
Volume 120, Issue 4, October 2015, Pages 1218–1246
[72] The Indian Penal Code, 1860, No.
45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India), ss. 121, 132, 194, 303, 364A, 376A.
[73] Roger Hood and Carolyn Hoyle,
“Abolishing the Death Penalty Worldwide: The Impact of a “New Dynamic”,” Crime
and Justice 38, no. 1 (2009): pp. 14,
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/598633 (last visited Dec 12, 2023).
[74] Law Commission of India, The Death
Penalty, Report No. 262 (New Delhi: Law Commission of India, 2015), pp.
207-210, https://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/Report262.pdf (last
visited Dec 12, 2023).
[75] National Research Council,
Deterrence and the Death Penalty (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press,
2012), pp. 2, https://doi.org/10.17226/13363 (last visited Dec 12, 2023).
[76] Anup Surendranath, “How Not to Make
the Case for the Death Penalty,” Economic and Political Weekly 47, no. 29
(2012), pp. 17-18, https://www.jstor.org/stable/23214052 (last visited Dec 12,
2023).
[79] Michael Ignatieff, A Just Measure
of Pain: The Penitentiary in the Industrial Revolution, 1750-1850 (Pantheon
Books 1978).
[82] Sangeeta Tyagi, British Prison
Policy Changes and Kol Insurrection, Prison History of Early Independent India,
Accessed from: https://www.importantindia.com/15948/prison-system-during-british-period/,
(last visited Dec. 13, 2023)
[83] Ranabir Samaddar, The Politics of
Dialogue: Living Under the Geopolitical Histories of War and Peace (Routledge
2016), p.58
[84] Dipesh Chakrabarty, Rethinking
Working-Class History: Bengal, 1890-1940 (Princeton University Press 2015),
p.105
[86] PRS Legislative Research, Examining
Prisons in India (Institute for Policy Research Studies 2017), p.5
[89] Mohd. Akhtar Hussain alias Ibrahim
Ahmed Bhatti v. Asst. Collector of Customs (P), Ahmedabad & Anr., (1988) 4
SCC 183.
[90] Amnesty International India,
"Prisons in India: Reform not Punishment?," 2015, p.8, https://amnesty.org.in/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Prisons-in-India-Reform-Not-Punishment.pdf
(last visited Dec. 12, 2023).
[93] Government of India, “Mulla
Committee Report on Prison Reforms," 1983,
mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/MullaCommitteRpt-06101983.pdf (last visited Dec.
12, 2023).
[94] P. Sahadevan, “Prison Reform in
India: A Comparative Study of Indian and Nordic Prison Systems,"
https://www.unafei.or.jp/publications/pdf/RS_No60/No60_06VE_Sahadevan1.pdf
(last visited Dec. 12, 2023).
[97] Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative
(CHRI), “Feudal Forces: Reform Deferred- Prisoners in India,"
chri.org.in/feudal-forces-reform-deferred-prisoners-in-india/ (last visited
Dec. 12, 2023).
[98] Ministry of Home Affairs, “Model
Prison Manual 2016”, Bureau of Police Research and Development,
mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/ModelPrisonManual2016_0.pdf (last visited Dec.
12, 2023).
[99] Penal Reform and Justice
Association, PRJA White Paper on Prison Reforms, 2017, www.humanrightsinitiative.org/download/PRJA%20White%20Paper%20on%20Prison%20Reforms.pdf (last visited Dec. 12, 2023);
Amnesty International India (2015), Ibid.