Constitutional Validity and Contemporary Relevance of the Death Penalty under India’s New Criminal Law Framework

INTRODUCTION

The welfare society’s goal is to reduce crime. Even though there are ways to reduce crime through reformative means, crimes that are serious and violate victim’s rights should be punished severely. It is not beneficial to society to reform people who commit crimes on a regular basis. These criminals ought to be punished in one way or another. The harshest penalty imposed by the system to deter other serious offenses is the death penalty. The death penalty is known as the capital punishment when it is applied to a criminal. Even if the death penalty is an option in India, it can only be used in cases of very egregious crimes.

Immanuel Kant strongly supported the death penalty as a punishment for murder (e.g., if a people inhabiting an island decided to separate and disperse throughout the world), the last murderer remaining in the prison would first have to be executed, so that each has done to him what his deeds deserve and blood guilt does not cling to the people for not having insisted upon this punishment; for otherwise the people can be regarded as collaborators in this public violation of justice.¹

The death penalty is referred to as the capital punishment. The purposeful inflicting of death as a form of punishment by the nation’s capital controlling authority is known as the capital punishment. Disabled people are typically given the death penalty. It is the harshest punishment that a criminal can receive under the law; in other words, it ends his life. In the past, this punishment was solely applied to sexual and religious offenses, as well as unlawful homicides. The death penalty, which takes away a person’s life and existence, is the harshest penalty in human penology.

The importance of life is stated in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. They contend that no one may be robbed of their life or personal freedom until the legal process is followed.

The Supreme Court has ruled that courts must respond to emerging arguments about the death penalty and adapt the sentencing system to address these challenges. By applying the proper punishment, the goal should be to safeguard society and prevent the offender from fulfilling the stated purpose of the law. It is anticipated that the courts would use the sentencing system to impose sentences that represent society’s conscience, and if appropriate, the sentencing procedure must be harsh. The logic applies to all situations where the right sentence is at issue, even though the principles were mentioned in the background of the death and life sentences.

INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS, 1966

India is also a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, which went into effect on March 23, 1976. It does not completely eliminate the use of the death penalty. From the standpoint of international human rights, efforts to abolish the death penalty started in the early 1960s. Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) safeguards the right to life and provides signatories with crucial protections against the death penalty. India has ratified the ICCPR and signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but it has turned down the second optional protocol (ICCPR-OP2) that aims to abolish the death penalty. More recently, India voted against a draft resolution calling for the abolition of the death penalty at the UN General Assembly meeting in December 2022. India became one of the few nations that have not yet abolished the death penalty after this refusal. There have only been 14 executions in India since 2000. Despite its small size, this number is thought to be a reliable indicator of India’s situation.

The International Commission against the Death Sentence makes strong cases for nations to do away with the death penalty. Evidence that the death penalty is ineffective in deterring crime is one of the main points. The Commission also examines the impact of public opinion, which is a significant obstacle to eradication. The main reason for keeping the death sentence in place is to support a mob mentality that seeks vengeance for horrible crimes.

Therefore, the guarantees or restrictions found in Articles 20 and 21 of our Constitution are equivalent to the requirements of the International Covenant. The death penalty is only recommended as an alternative punishment for egregious offenses under the BNS, 2023. Therefore, Indian penal laws are completely compliant with the International Covenant.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN INDIA

India is one of the few countries in the world, alongside China, Pakistan, Iran, the United States of America, and Saudi Arabia, that has a judicial death sentence in its criminal justice system. India’s criminal jurisprudence combines deterrence and reformative punishment approaches. Although the majority of nations have abolished the death penalty, and retentionist countries are phasing it out through legislative reforms, the Supreme Court of India has repeatedly upheld its constitutional legality. The Court has stated that the abolition of capital punishment by the British Parliament, numerous Latin American governments, and Australia cannot be used to remove it from Indian statutes. Given India’s rising crime rates, the death penalty cannot be abolished (35th Law Commission, 1967). As a result, it is critical to analyze the extent to which the death sentence adheres to the constitutional mandates of justice, fairness, and equality. It is worth noting that the execution rate in India has been quite less. Only three executions and the maximum number of presidential pardons occurred between 2007 and 2019, a span of more than a decade.

In Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court played a critical role in bringing down judicial killings by enunciating the theory of “the rarest of rare cases” that would entail only grave and heinous crimes where alternative punishment would be inadequate and insufficient. Until 2013, India followed worldwide developments and remained consistent with the global trend toward abolition, but with the passage of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act of 2013, the government reaffirmed its commitment to punishing rape with the death sentence.

OFFENCES PUNISHABLE WITH ‘DEATH SENTENCE’ IN INDIA

Regardless of special legislation, the BNS contains 15 offenses under different parts that allow a competent court to sentence a person to death if they are found guilty. The Supreme Court of India has instructed all courts to adhere to the notion that “imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is exception” and to only apply the death penalty in “rarest of the rare” circumstances. However, determining which situations are “rarest of the rare” and which can be held in rare cases is the most perplexing regulation. Since each instance has unique circumstances and is distinct from the others, there is no definite criteria that can declare such occurrences to be the rarest of the rare. Although the Supreme Court of India has attempted to establish the “rarest of the rare cases” standard, it is never static or exclusive. The thought evolved along with the times and conditions.

Sl. No.	Section (BNS, 2023)		Offence
1.	Section 65(2)		Rape of woman under 12 years
2.	Section 66		Punishment for causing death or resulting in persistent vegetative state of victim.
3.	Section 70(2)	Gang rape of woman under 18 years
4.	Section 71		Punishment for repeat offenders in cases of Rape, Rape in certain cases, Rape in persistent vegetative state of victim & Gang rape.
5.	Section 103 (1)		Punishment for Murder
6.	Section 103(2)		Punishment for Murder (Mob Lynching)
7.	Section 104		Punishment for murder by life-convict.
8.	Section 107		Abetment of suicide of child or person of unsound mind
9.	Section 111 (2)		Organised crime.
10.	Section 113(2)		Terrorist act resulting in death
11.	Section 140(2)		Kidnapping for ransom (if death results)
12.	Section 147		Waging war against Government of India
13.	Section 160		Abetment of mutiny (if mutiny committed)
14.	Section 230(2)		Giving or fabricating false evidence leading to execution of innocent person
15.	Section 310(3)		Dacoity with murder

A. Rape of a Woman Under Twelve Years of Age²

The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita’s Section 65(2) addresses the severe crime of rape against a girl under the age of twelve. The clause permits the application of the death sentence and stipulates hard imprisonment for a minimum of twenty years, which may be extended to imprisonment for the balance of the offender’s natural life. The great vulnerability of kids and the lasting physical and psychological anguish produced by sexual abuse against children are the justifications for this harsh punishment. The legislation wants to guarantee more protection for youngsters and offer a powerful deterrence against such crimes. In accordance with constitutional principles guiding sentencing in capital punishment cases, the provision does not, however, mandate the death penalty; rather, it leaves the option to judicial discretion.

B. Causing the Victim’s Death or Persistent Vegetative State³

Section 66 deals with circumstances in which the victim of sexual assault dies or is left in a chronic vegetative condition. This clause acknowledges that some sexual assaults may result in such severe physical harm that the victim either passes away or has irreversible brain damage that leaves them in a vegetative state. In these situations, the perpetrator may face the death penalty or harsh imprisonment for a minimum of twenty years, which may be extended to life in prison for the balance of their natural life. The clause demonstrates the legislature’s intention to portray such acts as crimes with consequences similar to homicide rather than just sexual offenses, thereby justifying the harshest punishment.

C. Rape of a Woman under the Age of Eighteen by a Gang⁴

Gang rape of a woman under the age of eighteen is illegal under Section 70(2). The law stipulates strict imprisonment for a minimum of twenty years, which can be extended to imprisonment for the length of the offender’s natural life or death, in recognition of the serious nature of gang rape, especially when the victim is a minor. The legislature hopes to highlight the seriousness of the crime and reaffirm the necessity of severe legal repercussions in situations involving kids by making the death sentence a potential punishment.

D. Penalties for Repeat Violators in Rape Cases⁵

For repeat offenders who have been found guilty of crimes including rape, severe rape, rape that results in a prolonged vegetative condition, or gang rape, Section 71 offers harsher penalties. The law permits either the death sentence or life in prison, which entails incarceration for the length of the offender’s natural life, if someone who has previously been convicted of such offenses commits the crime again. The clause is predicated on the idea that repeat criminals show a persistent disrespect for the law and continue to be a menace to society. As a result, more severe punishments are thought to be required for both deterrent and victim protection.

E. Punishment for Murder⁶

The main clause of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita that addresses the penalty for murder is Section 103(1). It keeps the old sentencing system in place, which allows a person found guilty of murder to face either death or life in prison in addition to a fine. The Supreme Court of India ruled in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab that the death sentence should only be applied in the “rarest of rare cases,” a long-standing policy that is consistent with this framework. As a result, Section 103(1) protects judicial discretion when deciding whether a given case warrants the death penalty.

F. Murder by Mob Lynching⁷

A special clause addressing murder committed by a group of people acting in concert on the basis of race, caste, community, sex, language, or other comparable identities is introduced in Section 103(2). Mob lynching is the term used to describe these events, which are acts of group violence motivated by prejudice or vigilantism. The legislation acknowledges the serious danger that mob violence poses to the rule of law and public order. Therefore, if mob lynching causes death, the perpetrators may be executed or imprisoned for life. The legislature’s attempt to address growing worries about mob violence in modern society is shown in the introduction of this clause.

G. Murder by a Life Convict⁸

Section 104 deals with murder committed by a person who is already serving a sentence of life imprisonment. According to Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code, anyone convicted of murder while serving a life sentence is required to be executed. In Mithu v. State of Punjab⁹, the Supreme Court of India heard a challenge to this clause and ruled that it was unconstitutional because it violated both Article 14 and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Court determined that Section 303 violated the equality principle under Article 14 by unilaterally treating life in prison as a distinct and dangerous class without any rational basis. More significantly, the clause eliminated all judicial discretion by requiring the death penalty as soon as guilt was proven. Since it denied judges the chance to take into account the circumstances of the offense or the existence of mitigating elements, such a law was deemed unjust, unfair, and unreasonable under Article 21. Additionally, it compromised the procedural protections afforded by the Code of Criminal Procedure during sentencing, including the accused’s right to a hearing on the issue of sentence and the necessity that judges give specific justification before imposing the death penalty. As a result, the Court ruled that a statute that automatically imposed the death penalty without using the judicial mind was repressive and arbitrary. As a result, Section 303 IPC was overturned, and murders committed by life convict in prison were subsequently prosecuted under Section 302 IPC, where the court had the option of imposing the death penalty or life in prison.

Section 104 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which addresses murder committed by a person currently serving a life sentence, has now reinstated a similar offense. However, Section 104 BNS does not mandate the death penalty, in contrast to Section 303 IPC. Rather, it offers life in prison or the death penalty as alternatives. This change reinstates judicial discretion and enables judges to consider the offender and the circumstances of the offense before deciding on the proper punishment. Section 104 aims to rectify the constitutional flaws found in Mithu v. State of Punjab by offering life in prison as an alternative penalty. In addition to adhering to the principle established in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, where the Supreme Court ruled that the death sentence should only be applied in the “rarest of rare cases,” it matches the provision with the constitutional requirement that sentencing must be fair, just, and reasonable. Therefore, the existence of judicial discretion guarantees that the provision is more consistent with constitutional values of equality and protection of life and personal liberty, even though the offense has been reintroduced in the new criminal law framework.

H. Abetting a Child or Person of Unsound Mind to Take Their Own Life¹⁰

Abetment of suicide in extremely vulnerable circumstances, such as when the victim is a child or a person of unsound mind, is covered by Section 107. The law views aiding and abetting their suicide as an aggravated offense since these people may not be able to resist compulsion or make fully informed judgments. If such a vulnerable individual commits suicide as a result of the act of abetment, the perpetrator may be sentenced to death or life in prison. This clause aims to provide further protection to people who are particularly vulnerable to abuse or manipulation.

I. Organized Crime¹¹

Section 111(2) deals with organized crime, which is defined as organized criminal activity carried out by organizations using violence, intimidation, or illegal means for financial or other gains. If an individual is killed as a result of organized crime, the penalty may include a fine and either death or life in prison. The clause acknowledges that organized crime groups frequently commit systematic acts of violence that jeopardize public safety and weaken state authority. Therefore, when such actions result in fatalities, the law stipulates the worst punishment.

J. Death-causing Terrorist Act¹²

Terrorist acts that cause human death are covered under Section 113(2). Because terrorism aims to instill fear and undermine political institutions, it is considered one of the worst threats to public safety and national security. Therefore, if a terrorist attack results in death, the perpetrators may be sentenced to death or life in prison. The harshness of the penalty reflects the seriousness of terrorism as a crime against both persons and the nation’s integrity and sovereignty.

K. Ransom kidnapping leading to death¹³

Section 140(2) deals with kidnapping or abduction that occurs with the intention of obtaining ransom and in which the victim is killed while the crime is being committed. Because it combines illegal detention with extortion and frequently puts the victim’s life in great danger, kidnapping for ransom is considered a very serious crime. The legislation emphasizes the serious repercussions of such criminal behavior by authorizing the death penalty or life in prison when the crime results in death.

L. Act of War against the Indian Government¹⁴

Acts of war against the Indian government are prohibited by Section 147. Attempts to topple the government by violent revolt or armed rebellion fall under this category. The crime jeopardizes national stability and goes right to the core of the state. As a result, the legislation stipulates that the sentence is either death or life in jail. The idea that actions of war against the State jeopardize the nation’s security, unity, and sovereignty is reflected in the harshness of the punishment.

M. Mutiny & Abetment ¹⁵

When a mutiny is actually carried out inside the armed forces, Section 160 addresses aiding and abetting it. Mutiny puts national security at grave risk by undermining military discipline and operational efficacy. A person may be executed or imprisoned for life if they encourage or support members of the military forces to rebel against legitimate authority and the mutiny is carried out. The clause aims to protect the military’s integrity and discipline.

N. False Evidence Resulting in an Innocent Person’s Execution¹⁶

When someone purposefully fabricates or provides false evidence knowing that it could result in the conviction and execution of an innocent person, that case is covered under Section 230(2). The criminal may be sentenced to death or life in prison if the false evidence causes the innocent person to die. This clause demonstrates how seriously the legal system takes perjury and the misuse of the legal system. It highlights that it is a very serious crime to manipulate the legal system in order to kill an innocent person.

O. Murder and Dacoity¹⁷

Cases involving dacoity—robbery by five or more people—and murder are covered by Section 310(3). When a member of a group engages in dacoity and causes someone to die, the offense is greatly intensified. As a result, the law stipulates that criminals may be sentenced to either life in prison or death. The clause acknowledges that fatal violence in group robberies is a major danger to social order and public safety.

Additionally, India’s unique laws allow for the imposition of the death penalty. The following crimes are subject to the death penalty under Special Laws. Although it is not exhaustive, I attempted to include every offense that is punished by death under Special Laws.

(i) Offense under the Armed Forces Acts: The Court Martial has the authority to impose the death penalty as a maximum punishment on an individual who is subject to these Acts and whose offense falls under the list specified by these Acts under section 34 and mutiny under section 37. The Court Martial may also impose the death penalty for offenses covered by the Air Force, Army, and Navy Acts.¹⁸

(ii) The NDPS Act imposes the death penalty for certain offenses following prior convictions.¹⁹

(iii) Using unapproved weapons or ammunition that causes another person to die is punishable by death.²⁰

(iv) POCSO Act offenses.²¹

(v) The death penalty is applied to the crime of aiding and abetting Sati²².

(vi) The death penalty is applied to crimes against the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.²³

(vii) The death penalty is applied to crimes under the Terrorist Act that are legally enforceable in the nation, such as UAPA Section 10 (b) (i), Section 16

CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF SENTENCE OF DEATH.

The death penalty’s constitutionality has frequently been contested. The Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty cannot be said to be unreasonable or not in the public interest, and that deprivation of life is constitutionally legitimate if it is carried out in accordance with the legal process. Additionally, it was decided that judges have a great deal of discretion when it comes to determining the severity of punishment, and that this discretion may be overturned by higher courts. In the end, using judicial discretion based on accepted principles is the safest way to protect the accused.

The constitutionality of the death penalty was first contested in the Jagmohan case²⁴ in 1973. The petitioner in this case contested the legality of Singh’s death sentence, arguing that it violated Articles 19 and 21 since it lacked a procedure. It was argued that the Code of Criminal Procedure’s authorized process limited culpability rather than imposing the death penalty. The Hon’ble Supreme Court’s five-judge bench ruled that the decision to impose the death penalty is made in compliance with the legal process. The circumstances, facts, and kind of crime presented during the trial are taken into consideration by the court while deciding between the death penalty and life in prison. Therefore, the death penalty is constitutional because it does not violate Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. Following this ruling, the death penalty’s constitutionality was beyond question.

The death penalty was declared unconstitutional in 1979. In the Rajendra Prasad case²⁵, the death penalty was contested once more. Justice VR Krishna Iyer ruled that the death penalty would not be appropriate until it was demonstrated that the offender posed a threat to society. He concluded that it would be against Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which forbids arbitrariness, to grant the judge the authority to decide between a death sentence and life in prison under section 354(3) of the Code. He stated that the death sentence should only be used to punish “White Collar Criminals” and should be abolished altogether. However, Justice Sen held in his concurrent ruling that the Parliament, not the court, should decide whether to abolish the death penalty or limit the application of Section 302 of the IPC and Section 354(3) of the Code.

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity in 1980: In the case of Bachan Singh²⁶, the Hon’ble Supreme Court overturned the ruling in Rajendra Prasad’s sentence under section 302 of the IPC as an alternative punishment for murder, ruling that the death penalty did not violate Article 21. The right to a fair, just, and reasonable legal procedure is recognized by Article 21 of the Constitution. It can be made that the death penalty under section 302 of the IPC, either in and of itself or because it is carried out by hanging, constitutes an unreasonable, cruel, or unusual punishment given the State’s ability to deprive a person of their life or personal liberty in accordance with constitutional provisions. The fundamental principle of the Constitution is not violated by the death sentence for murder.

The majority determined that section 302 of the IPC is applicable in Bachan Singh’s case for three primary reasons: First, section 302’s death penalty is an alternative to life in prison. Declared under section 354 (3) of the Code if the normal rule is broken and the death penalty must be applied; and, thirdly, because the accused is entitled to a hearing on the issue of sentence under section 235 (2) of the Code.

The majority determined that section 302 of the IPC is applicable in Bachan Singh’s case for three primary reasons: First, section 302’s death penalty is an alternative to life in prison. Declared under section 354 (3) of the Code if the normal rule is broken and the death penalty must be applied; and, thirdly, because the accused is entitled to a hearing on the issue of sentence under section 235 (2) of the Code.

In the Sher Singh case²⁷, the Hon’ble Supreme Court decided that the death penalty is both legally legitimate and admissible within the bounds of the rule in the Bachchan Singh case, while expressing the following opinion regarding the constitutional legality of the death penalty. This must be acknowledged as the law of the land.

In the case of Allauddin Mian²⁸, the Supreme Court of India once more upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty and held that, despite the Statutory provision in Section 354(3) of the Code that requires the giving of special reasons when imposing the death penalty, challenges to the death penalty’s constitutionality could not be stopped. In the 1991 case of Jumman Khan²⁹, the Supreme Court once again held that we are in full agreement with the expressed in Allauddin’s case.In that regard, the court firmly believed that the majority’s ruling in Bachchan Singh’s case did not need to be taken into account.

Once more, in 1992, the Supreme Court heard a challenge to the constitutionality of the death penalty in the Shashi Nayar case³⁰, using nearly all of the same arguments as in the Jagmohan and Bachchan Singh instances. In addition to citing Article 21 and claiming that the death penalty has no social purpose, it was argued that the Law Commission’s 35th Report of 1967, which the majority opinion cited to support the death penalty in Bachchan Singh, shouldn’t continue to serve as the court’s guide because a lot has changed since then and the court was not presented with any empirical evidence that the circumstances of 1967 still existed. The court dismissed every argument.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court of India has upheld the death penalty’s constitutionality in a number of cases. However, only once—in the Rajendra Prasad case, which was overturned within a year—was the process declared to be illegal and in violation of Article 14. The constitutionality of the death penalty has now been established, therefore there is no need to waste time or damage the ink.

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court of India has continuously examined the constitutionality of the death penalty in India, especially in significant rulings like Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, which maintained the death penalty’s constitutionality while limiting its use to the “rarest of rare cases.” This principle guarantees that the death penalty is only applied in extreme situations where life in prison is clearly insufficient as a substitute punishment. At the same time, the Court has repeatedly stressed that punishment must adhere to the due process, equality, and justice guarantees found in Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution.

The idea that the death penalty cannot be applied without judicial discretion and consideration of mitigating circumstances was further supported by the ruling in Mithu v. State of Punjab, which overturned the mandatory death penalty under Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code. With the passage of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the new criminal law framework expanded the application of the death penalty to some modern crimes, such as mob lynching and organized crime that results in death, while largely maintaining the structure of the death penalty that existed under the previous penal law. Crucially, the new law addresses the constitutional issues raised by mandatory sentencing by offering life in prison as an alternative to the death penalty, thereby preserving judicial discretion.

This shows an effort by the legislature to strike a balance between the constitutional requirement of fairness and proportionality in criminal punishment and the goals of deterrence, retribution, and society protection. In summary, the death penalty still holds a complicated place in India’s criminal justice system. Although it is still allowed by the constitution, judicial concepts and procedural safeguards severely restrict its applicability. The new criminal laws follow the guidelines set by court precedent rather than radically changing the constitutional framework that governs the death penalty. The careful use of judicial discretion, commitment to constitutional principles, and the changing standards of justice in a democratic society will ultimately determine the death penalty’s continued validity.

*****

Footnotes

1. Immanuel Kant, The Metaphysics of Morals 333 (Mary Gregor trans., Cambridge Univ. Press 1996).

2. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, No. 45 of 2023, § 65(2) (India).

3. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, No. 45 of 2023, § 66 (India).

4. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, No. 45 of 2023, § 70(2) (India).

5. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, No. 45 of 2023, § 71 (India).

6. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, No. 45 of 2023, § 103(1) (India).

7. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, No. 45 of 2023, § 103(2) (India).

8. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, No. 45 of 2023, § 104 (India).

9. Mithu v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 473 (India).

10. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, No. 45 of 2023, § 107 (India).

11. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, No. 45 of 2023, § 111(2) (India).

12. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, No. 45 of 2023, § 113(2) (India).

13. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, No. 45 of 2023, § 140(2) (India).

14. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, No. 45 of 2023, § 147 (India).

15. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, No. 45 of 2023, § 160 (India).

16. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, No. 45 of 2023, § 230(2) (India).

17. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, No. 45 of 2023, § 310(3) (India).

18. Army Act, 1950, No. 46 of 1950, §§ 34, 37 (India); Air Force Act, 1950, No. 45 of 1950 (India); and the Navy Act, 1957, No. 62 of 1957 (India).

19. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, § 31A, No. 61 of 1985, India.

20. Arms Act, 1959, § 27(3), No. 54 of 1959, India.

21. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, § 6, No. 32 of 2012, India.

22. Commission of Sati (Prevention) Act, 1987, § 4(1), No. 3 of 1988, India.

23. Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, § 3(2)(i), No. 33 of 1989, India.

24. Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P., (1973) 2 S.C.R. 541 (India).

25. Rajendra Prasad v. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 916 (India).

26. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 898 (India).

27. Sher Singh v. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 465 (India).

28. Allauddin Mian v. State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 1456 (India).

29. Jumman Khan v. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 345 (India).

30. Shashi Nayar v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 395 (India).