Landmark Judgement
Attorney General Of India Vs. Lachma Devi, 1985
Right to life
Supreme Court·21 January 1985
Judgement Details
Court
Supreme Court
Date of Decision
21 January 1985
Judges
Justice G Oza ⦁ K J Shetty
Citation
(1985) 1 SCC 686
Acts / Provisions
Article 21, Article 32 & 226, Right to life, Indian Constitution
Facts of the Case
- Lachma Devi set her daughter-in-law Pushpa on fire due to bad relations and dissatisfaction with the dowry brought by her, causing her death. She was sentenced to death by public hanging in a place like Ramlila Maidan by the Rajasthan High Court. An appeal was filed by her against this decision.
Issues
- Whether the practice of public hanging was constitutional?
- Whether it violated the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed by the Indian Constitution?
Judgement
- The Supreme Court of India gives judgment in favor of Lachma Devi and view that public hanging was unconstitutional and violated the fundamental rights guaranteedunder the Indian Constitution.
- The Court found that public torture is a depraved and cruel practice that is incompatible with the principles of dignity, humanity and the right to life and personal freedom. The court also held that the act of public hanging was a cruel and degrading punishment that violated the constitutional prohibition against torture.
- The bench also condemned that public hanging as being unconstitutional and grossly violative of Article 21 of the Constitution, thus deleting that order of the High Court.
- Thus, while a death sentence remains a method of punishment in the most serious crimes, it need not be taken to the extent of a public hanging to further humiliate the convict and cause turmoil in society.
Held
The Supreme Court in Attorney General of India v. Lachma Devi held that the direction for execution of the death sentence was unconstitutional and violative of Article 21. It was further made clear that death by public hanging would be a barbaric practice. Although the crime for which the accused has been found guilty was barbaric it would be a shame on the civilized society to reciprocate the same. The Court said, “a barbaric crime should not have to be visited with a barbaric penalty.”
Analysis
- The Petitioner argues that public hanging was a necessary part of the criminal justice system, and it acted as a deterrent to crime. The Attorney General argued that the Constitution of India did not prohibit capital punishment, and the mode of execution was left to the discretion of the legislature. Additionally, the Attorney General contended that public hanging was a long-standing practice in India and was consistent with the cultural and social values of the country.
- The respondents' lawyers argued that the public hanging was a barbaric and inhumane practice that violated her fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution. She argued that the act of public hanging was a cruel, degrading, and inhuman punishment that was inconsistent with the constitutional principles of dignity and humanity. Additionally, Lachma Devi contended that public hanging was a form of torture that was prohibited under international law, and India had ratified various international conventions that prohibited torture.