Recent judicial rulings in India have reignited debates about the fairness and consistency of capital punishment. In two noted cases, Greeshma S.S., a 24- year-old woman, convicted of poisoning her partner Sharon Raj, was sentenced to death in Kerala, while Sanjay Roy, guilty of the brutal rape and murder of a junior doctor in Kolkata, received life imprisonment. These contrasting outcomes highlight the inconsistencies in the application of the death penalty, raising profound questions about its role in delivering justice and its alignment with the principles of equity and fairness in a modern legal framework. The principle of justice delivery hinges on consistency, fairness, and proportionality. Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo once wrote, “Justice is not to be taken by storm.

She is to be wooed by slow advances.” But the Indian judicial system, particularly when it comes to the death penalty, appears more as a judicial lottery than a paragon of impartiality. The ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine, established in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980), aimed to reserve the death penalty for crimes so heinous that they shock the collective conscience of society. Advocates assert that it acts as a deterrent, delivers justice proportionate to the severity of the crime, and offers closure to victims’ families by addressing the enormity of their loss. However, the doctrine’s subjective interpretation allows for wide judicial discretion, leading to inconsistent and often unpredictable outcomes, undermining its intended purpose of ensuring equitable justice. Greeshma’s act was undeniably calculated and coldhearted.

Advertisement

However, how society and the judiciary deemed her crime more reprehensible than that of Sanjay Roy reflects an undercurrent of gendered and situational biases. Greeshma’s actions were viewed as an intimate betrayal that perhaps affronts the moral fabric of trust. In contrast, Sanjay’s crime ~........

© The Statesman