Mithu v. State of Punjab
Supreme Court of India · 7 April 1983 · 5 judges · 1983 AIR 473; 1983 SCR (2) 690; 1983 SCC (2) 277
The Constitution Bench struck down Section 303 IPC, which made death the mandatory sentence for murder by a person under a life sentence, as violating Articles 14 and 21; all murders now fall under Section 302.
Facts
Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code provided that whoever, being under sentence of imprisonment for life, commits murder, shall be punished with death. A batch of criminal appeals, special leave petitions and writ petitions under Article 32 challenged its validity. The petitioners argued that the section was unreasonable and arbitrary and authorised deprivation of life by an unfair procedure, contrary to Article 21. The States argued that Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, which upheld the death sentence, concluded the question because Section 303 merely prescribed death for murder.
Questions before the Court
- Does the decision in Bachan Singh, upholding Section 302 IPC, govern the validity of Section 303?
- Is there a valid basis for classifying murderers under a sentence of life imprisonment separately and subjecting them to a mandatory death sentence?
- Is a law prescribing a mandatory death sentence, without hearing the accused on sentence or stating reasons, fair, just and reasonable under Article 21?
What the Court held
- After Maneka Gandhi, Sunil Batra and Bachan Singh, the last word on justice and fairness does not rest with the legislature; courts decide whether a procedure for depriving life or liberty is fair, just and reasonable, and a savage sentence is contrary to Article 21.
- The ratio of Bachan Singh is that the death sentence is valid when it is an alternative to life imprisonment, the normal sentence for murder. Section 303 prescribes death as the only sentence, so Sections 235(2) and 354(3) CrPC cannot operate, and Bachan Singh does not govern its validity.
- There is no rational basis for distinguishing murders by life convicts from other murders. Section 303 covers persons sentenced to life for any of fifty-one offences, such as forgery, and the classification bears no nexus with its object.
- A law that deprives the court of discretion in a matter of life and death, regardless of the circumstances and gravity of the offence, is harsh, unjust and unfair. The legislature cannot make relevant circumstances irrelevant.
- Section 303 violates Articles 14 and 21 and is struck down as void. All murders now fall under Section 302 and there is no mandatory death sentence for murder. The cases were sent to a Division Bench for disposal on merits.
Why it matters
The judgment holds the mandatory death sentence in Section 303 unconstitutional because it excludes judicial discretion and the safeguards of a hearing on sentence and of special reasons. It explains the ratio of Bachan Singh as confined to death as an alternative sentence, and it applies the Maneka Gandhi requirement of a fair, just and reasonable procedure to the punishment prescribed by a penal law.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“These decisions have expanded the scope of Article 21 in a significant way and it is now too late in the day to contend that it is for the Legislature to prescribe the procedure and for the Court to follow it, that it is for the legislature to provide the punishment and for the courts to impose it.”
“The legislature cannot make relevant circumstances irrelevant, deprive the courts of their legitimate jurisdiction to exercise their discretion not to impose the death sentence in appropriate cases, compel them to shut their eyes to mitigating circumstances and inflict upon them the dubious and unconscionable duty of imposing a preordained sentence of death.”
“We strike down section 303 of Penal Code as unconstitutional and declare it void. It is needless to add that all cases of murder will now fall under section 302 of the Penal Code and there shall be no mandatory sentence of death for the offence of murder.”
“So final, so irrevocable and so irrestitutable is the sentence of death that no law which provides for it without involvement of the judicial mind can be said to be fair, just and reasonable. Such a law must necessarily be stigmatised as arbitrary and oppressive.”
Provisions interpreted
- Section 303, Indian Penal Code, 1860Now: BNS 104 (NCRB correspondence table)
- Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860Now: BNS 103 (NCRB correspondence table)
- Article 14, Constitution
- Article 21, Constitution
- Section 235(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Now: BNSS 258 (NCRB correspondence table)
- Section 354(3), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Now: BNSS 393 (NCRB correspondence table)
Related judgments
- Explains Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980)“The ratio of Bachan Singh, therefore, is that, death sentence is constitutional if it is prescribed as an alternative sentence for the offence of murder” (page 9)
- Follows Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)“The procedure prescribed by law has to be fair, just and reasonable, not fanciful, oppressive or arbitrary.” (page 7)
- Followed in Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014)
Case and bench
- Parties
- Mithu etc. v. State of Punjab etc.
- Case
- Criminal Appeal No. 745 of 1980, with Writ Petition (Crl.) Nos. 529 of 1980 and 368 of 1981, SLP (Crl.) No. 2744 of 1980, Writ Petition No. 1365 of 1982 and Criminal Appeals Nos. 303 and 502 of 1982
- Decided
- 7 April 1983
- Bench
- Chandrachud, Y.V. (CJ), Fazalali, Syed Murtaza, Tulzapurkar, V.D., Reddy, O. Chinnappa (J), Varadarajan, A. (J)
- Opinions
- Unanimous in result. Chandrachud, CJ delivered the main judgment, written for 'we'; Chinnappa Reddy, J. wrote a separate concurring judgment agreeing that Section 303 must be struck down. No other opinion appears in the file.
Questions on this case
2 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.