Supreme Court Strikes Down Gender-Specific Death Penalty for Gang Rape

[Title]

[Full Article Body]

The Supreme Court recently ruled on the constitutional validity of Section 40 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2019, which made the mandatory death penalty provisions under Section 376E of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for cases of gang rape with murder, gender-specific. A three-judge bench comprising of Justices UU Lalit, Indu Malhotra, and R Subhash Reddy passed the judgment on a petition filed by the NGO, Human Rights Law Network, challenging the constitutional validity of Section 40.

The Bench, while holding Section 40 of the Act to be unconstitutional, stated that gender cannot be the sole determinant for imposing the death penalty for cases of gang rape. The Court also noted that Section 376E already provided for the death penalty for gang rape with murder, regardless of the gender of the victim. It emphasized that the concept of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be compromised, and a person’s right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 must be upheld.

In the petition, it was argued that Section 40 violated the basic structure of the Constitution by making the death penalty for rape selective based on gender, and that it went against the recommendation of the Justice Verma Committee. The Committee, formed in response to the 2012 Nirbhaya rape case, had recommended for the death penalty to be imposed for all cases of rape, not just those involving gang rape with murder. Additionally, it was also argued that Section 376E created a loophole for perpetrators of gang rape, as they could avoid the death penalty by not committing murder.

The Court further observed that Section 40 also went against the principles of natural justice and fair trial, by making a person’s gender the determinative factor for punishment. It noted that the inclusion of gender as a ground for imposing the death penalty was arbitrary and had no rational basis. The Bench also upheld the principle of “rarest of rare” cases, stating that the death penalty should be given in exceptional cases and not as a mandatory punishment.

Section 40 was introduced as part of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2019, which was enacted to protect the rights and dignity of women in the wake of increasing incidents of sexual violence against women. However, the Supreme Court’s ruling has struck down this particular provision, emphasizing that the death penalty should be given only in the most extreme cases.

The Court’s decision to strike down Section 40 as unconstitutional is a timely reminder of the foundational principles of our Constitution, which must be protected at all costs. It reiterates that the punishment must fit the crime and that no person should be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, regardless of their gender. The Supreme Court’s ruling also reinforces the need for a fair and just legal system, where the right to life and personal liberty is safeguarded for all individuals equally.

This decision also has significant implications for the justice system, as it ensures that the death penalty is not imposed arbitrarily or based on gender. It ensures that each case is judged on its own merits, and that the punishment reflects the severity of the crime. It emphasizes the importance of following the due process of law and upholding the principles of natural justice, which are crucial for any democratic society.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s ruling on the constitutional validity of Section 40 of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2019 is a step in the right direction towards ensuring gender equality and upholding the principles of fairness, justice, and constitutional values. It serves as a reminder that the rule of law must take precedence, and that every individual has the right to be treated with dignity and equality under the law.