By – Gurram Sai Ruchitha

Abstract:

This article explores the psychosocial impact of death row incarceration in India through the lens of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. While the death penalty remains legally permissible in the “rarest of rare” cases, this article argues that the prolonged mental anguish suffered by condemned prisoners amounts to a form of psychological torture, often violating constitutional protections of dignity and humane treatment. The article concludes that meaningful enforcement of Article 21 requires greater procedural safeguards, mental health care, and a re-examination of the ethical sustainability of capital punishment in India.

Introduction:

The Death Penalty, which is also referred to as ‘capital punishment’, is when the courts decide to punish a person for the ‘death penalty’ for committing the most heinous crimes like terrorism, gang rape, etc. This form of punishment traces its origins to the colonial period, when the British administration in India introduced the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in 1860, under which the death penalty was frequently imposed for offences such as murder and waging war against the government. Despite the global trends towards abolition, India post post-independence, continues to retain this ultimate punishment for certain offences. The Supreme Court, even in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, decided that the death penalty should only be used in  “rarest of rare” cases. However, a matter requiring due consideration is the impact of prolonged death row confinement, which leads to severe psychiatric harm, social isolation, and loss of personhood. It should be examined whether evolving legal standards consider delay, post-conviction mental illness, and prison conditions as grounds for commutation. This article examines how Article 21’s expansive protection of life has been applied to death-row conditions in India. It reviews the constitutional principles of dignity and due process, surveys the emerging social-scientific evidence on prisoners’ mental health, and analyses recent Indian case law on delays, mental illness, and procedural fairness for condemned inmates. 

The Death Row Phenomenon: Post-Conviction Mental Illness Among Death Row Inmates

Supreme Court in Francis Coralie Mullin vs The Administrator, that ‘right to life’ under Article 21 does not just mean mere animal existence. It guarantees a life of dignity and meaningful existence, something more than just physical survival. The Constitution guarantees to a prisoner all his fundamental rights and does not permit cruel or torturous treatment. But the right to mental health care, though inherently part of Article 21, has mostly been viewed by the judiciary in a narrow sense, focusing only on evaluating an accused’s mental condition during the commission of the offence or their ability to stand trial. There is minimal concern shown for prisoners who are subjected to mistreatment or torture post-conviction, especially the death row inmates. These death row prisoners suffer through the ‘death row phenomenon’ where the rampant physical abuse and psychological trauma push inmates into severe mental disorders, including chronic insomnia and paranoia, until their execution date. These long periods of harsh conditions, living in the shadow of just waiting for their execution date to come, often also lead to many suicidal thoughts. 

In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978), Prem Chand, a death row convict, was subjected to physical torture, beatings, and assaults by a jail warder attempting to extort money from him. With no access to proper grievance mechanisms or prison facilities for regular mental and physical health checkups, he was compelled to write directly to a Supreme Court judge seeking justice. Even though in Sunil Batra the Court expands the interpretation of Article 21 to include the rights of prisoners and condemns custodial violence, it did not go far enough to establish a clear legal mandate for regular mental health assessments, access to psychiatric care, or rehabilitative mental health services. Even if in post this judgment, prisons are equipped to deal with basic physical health checkups, the provision of mental healthcare remains rudimentary. In many facilities, psychiatric care is limited to visiting professionals and not permanently stationed experts, and is limited to cases where symptoms of mental illness become overt. The psychological health of death row prisoners warrants serious consideration, as research indicates significant implications. Research involving approximately 88 death row inmates in prominent Indian prisons indicates that 62.2% of these individuals have been diagnosed with at least one mental illness.”  In a project carried out by ‘Project 39A’, it was also shown that over 50 per cent, out of the 63 prisoners who volunteered information on suicidal behaviour and ideation, spoke about contemplating suicide at least once in prison. It is time that fundamental rights, including the right to life, liberty, and dignity, should be extended to even death row prisoners, and their psychological health should be given utmost importance.

Prolonged Solitary Confinement Arising from Delays due to Mercy Petitions

‘Mercy Petitions’ are pleas made by the death row prisoners in the hope of commuting their capital punishment to a lesser form of punishment. The convict can appeal to the Supreme Court or can also submit mercy petitions to the President of India under Article 72 or to the Governor of the state under Article 161 of the Indian Constitution. But the whole problem with these mercy petitions is the whole Administrative and executive delays, violating Article 21 (Right to Life) of the convict, as they just delay the whole justice process during which the death row prisoner continues to stay in ‘solitary confinement’. But Courts have started addressing delay and post-conviction illness since the 1980s. In Sher Singh v. State of Punjab (1983), the Supreme Court declined to prescribe any fixed legal time limit within which the mercy petition must be decided. However, later in Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014), a five-judge bench held that an “undue, inordinate, and unexplained delay” in execution inflicts “psychological torture” and justifies commutation to life imprisonment. Less than a month later, it commuted the death sentences of the Rajiv Gandhi assassination convicts solely on the grounds of an 11 to 19-year delay. Even in more recent decisions of Accused X v. State of Maharashtra (2019), the Court explicitly made post-conviction severe mental illness a ground for commutation. It adopted a “test of severity”, where the prisoner’s condition must be so extreme that he is unable to understand the nature and purpose of his sentence. And finally, in Prakash Vishwanath Darandale v. State of Maharashtra (2021), it went further, instructing that mitigation specialists and mental-health professionals be given access to death-row prisoners to uncover any facts affecting sentencing.

Despite the judiciary’s commendable efforts to mitigate the risk of further injustice faced by death row convicts, certain systemic deficiencies remain unaddressed. Notably, the judiciary’s proactive approach has limited impact on the conditions of confinement during the execution phase, where there is still no institutionalised provision for regular access to mental health professionals. Additionally, the mercy petition process, intended as a humanitarian safeguard, is rarely successful in practice. There exists no transparent or consistent framework for granting clemency, leading to arbitrary and often inconsistent outcomes across similarly situated cases. Compounding this opacity is the lack of any obligation to provide reasoned decisions to the convict, especially in the context of prolonged solitary confinement during the pendency of the petition. This not only exacerbates their psychological trauma but also undermines the core constitutional principles of fairness, dignity, and the right to life under Article 21.

Conclusion: Do we want the path forward to be about Retributive or Rehabilitative Justice?.

India should start reconsidering the concept of the death penalty, as it is primarily associated with the idea of retributive justice instead of rehabilitative justice. When this punitive ideal is combined with the immense psychological suffering endured by death row inmates, it produces a form of punishment that is not only irreversible but inherently inhumane. This punishment also disproportionately impacts the most marginalized and vulnerable communities, as observed in ‘Project 39A”, which indicates that 76% of death row prisoners in India belong to backwards classes and religious minorities. It goes against the Court’s observations in Sunil Batra, which emphasised the need for a more humane and rehabilitative approach to incarceration in India. To move toward a more equitable and rehabilitative justice system, India must urgently prioritize access to mental health care, psychosocial support, and fair legal processes for all death row inmates, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds. As countries like South Africa have done through judicial abolition, India too must consider whether the death penalty, in its current form, can ever coexist with the values of dignity, equality, and restorative justice enshrined in the Constitution.

About the Author:

Gurram Sai Ruchitha is studying 2nd year BBA LLB(Hons) at O.P. Jindal Global University. As a legal researcher and writer with a focus on constitutional law, human rights, and criminal justice reform in India.

ImageSource: https://theprint.in/opinion/india-needs-to-abolish-death-penalty-not-hang-2012-delhi-gangrape-convicts/358937/