Mithu v. State of Punjab

The story

Mithu was already serving a life sentence in prison when he was convicted of committing murder while incarcerated. Under Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code, the law gave the judge no choice: anyone in his position who committed murder had to be sentenced to death, full stop. There was no room to ask whether the killing was premeditated or provoked, whether Mithu had shown remorse, or whether any mitigating factors existed. Mithu challenged this rigid rule, arguing that it stripped him of the basic fairness the Constitution guaranteed even to the most disadvantaged people in society. The Supreme Court's Constitution Bench, led by Chief Justice Chandrachud, agreed. They had earlier ruled in Bachan Singh that even ordinary murder could only warrant death in the 'rarest of rare' cases, after careful judicial deliberation. To deny that same discretion to a subset of prisoners simply because of their prior sentence was, the Court found, arbitrary and cruel. In striking down Section 303, the judges affirmed that no life, however diminished by past wrongdoing, could be extinguished by an automatic rule of law without a judge ever truly looking at the person before them.

The facts

Mithu, a prisoner already undergoing a sentence of life imprisonment, was convicted of murdering another person while in custody. Under Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code, murder committed by a person under sentence of life imprisonment carried a mandatory death penalty, with no judicial discretion to impose any lesser sentence. Mithu challenged the constitutional validity of Section 303, arguing it violated his fundamental rights. The case was referred to a Constitution Bench given its significance following the earlier ruling in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab.

The question before the court

Whether Section 303 IPC, which mandates a death sentence for murder committed by a person already under sentence of life imprisonment (removing all judicial discretion in sentencing), is constitutionally valid under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

The holding

A five-judge Constitution Bench unanimously struck down Section 303 IPC as unconstitutional. The Court held that the provision violated Articles 14 and 21 because it imposed a mandatory death sentence without permitting the judge to consider the facts and circumstances of the crime or the criminal, thereby denying a fair and reasonable sentencing procedure. The Court reasoned that if even in cases of murder simpliciter under Section 302, the death penalty could only be imposed in the 'rarest of rare' cases after weighing aggravating and mitigating circumstances (per Bachan Singh), it was wholly arbitrary and unjust to impose a mandatory death sentence merely because the accused was already serving a life sentence, without any judicial discretion whatsoever.

The principle it stands for

A statute prescribing a mandatory death penalty, which forecloses all judicial discretion to consider the circumstances of the offence and the offender before sentencing, offends the guarantee of a fair, just and reasonable procedure under Article 21 and the equality principle under Article 14. Sentencing discretion in capital cases, as mandated by Bachan Singh's 'rarest of rare' doctrine, is a constitutional necessity and cannot be legislatively excluded.

Provisions this case shaped

• Art. 21Protection of life and personal libertyinterpreted — Mandatory death sentence held to violate the fair procedure guarantee under Article 21.
• Art. 14Equality before lawinterpreted — Mandatory sentencing without discretion held arbitrary and violative of equality under Article 14.
• IPC S. 303Punishment for murder by life-convictstruck_down — Section 303 IPC's mandatory death penalty for murder by life convicts was declared unconstitutional.