High Courts Confirm Only 10% of Death Sentences Since 2016

In a revelation that underscores the rigorous scrutiny applied to capital punishment in India's judicial system, a comprehensive report from NALSAR University's Square Circle Clinic reveals that High Courts have confirmed just 10% of death sentences handed down by trial courts since 2016. Over the same period, acquittals reached 34.65% of cases, with nearly half—47.46%—resulting in commutations to life imprisonment. At the apex level, the Supreme Court has acquitted 38 out of 153 death row convicts over the past decade and has not upheld a single death sentence since 2023. These stark figures, detailed in the clinic's Death Penalty in India: Annual Statistics Report , signal a profound judicial reluctance to endorse the ultimate penalty, raising critical questions about the future of capital punishment in the world's largest democracy.

Report Overview

The Square Circle Clinic, a student-led initiative at the National Academy of Legal Studies and Research (NALSAR) University in Hyderabad, has been meticulously tracking death penalty cases for years. Their latest annual report compiles data from trial courts, High Courts, and the Supreme Court, offering a data-driven lens on the trajectory of capital sentencing in India. Released amid ongoing debates on human rights and criminal justice reform, the report paints a picture of a system increasingly inclined toward clemency over finality.

Key highlights include the High Courts' handling of death sentences: out of the total cases reviewed since 2016, only a meager 10% have been confirmed as executable. As the report states verbatim, "High Courts have confirmed only 10% of death sentences since 2016: Square Circle Clinic report." This low confirmation rate is complemented by significant interventions in favor of the accused. Specifically, "Since 2016, the High Courts have acquitted 376 or 34.65% of those who were handed death sentences by trial courts. Death sentences in 515 or 47.46% cases were commuted by High Courts." These numbers reflect not just statistical trends but a deliberate judicial process aimed at ensuring that the death penalty adheres to the stringent "rarest of rare" standard.

At the Supreme Court, the patterns are equally telling. Over a decade, the court has reviewed 153 death reference cases and mercy petitions, acquitting 38 convicts—approximately 25% of the total. The year 2025 marked a particularly notable shift, with the apex court acquitting death row prisoners in 10 out of 19 cases it heard, the highest acquittal rate in the past ten years. Moreover, "The Supreme Court has also not confirmed a single death sentence since 2023," a moratorium that has effectively stalled executions at the highest judicial level.

High Court Scrutiny: A Stringent Review

High Courts in India serve as the crucial appellate and confirmation forums under Section 366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, which mandates their review of all death sentences before they can be executed. The Square Circle Clinic's data indicates that since 2016, trial courts across the country have imposed death sentences in over 1,000 cases, but the High Courts' intervention has dramatically altered outcomes for the majority.

The 34.65% acquittal rate—totaling 376 cases—often stems from procedural lapses at the trial stage, insufficient evidence, or re-evaluation of mitigating factors that trial judges may have overlooked. Commutations, at 47.46% (515 cases), typically convert death to life imprisonment without remission, reflecting a nuanced application of sentencing guidelines. Legal experts attribute this to the judiciary's growing emphasis on individualized sentencing, ensuring that socio-economic backgrounds, mental health, and reform potential are weighed heavily.

This trend is not uniform across states but shows variations; for instance, High Courts in states with high trial court impositions, like Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra, have seen elevated reversal rates. The report's findings challenge the notion of death penalty as a deterrent, suggesting instead that appellate oversight acts as a safeguard against miscarriages of justice.

Supreme Court Trends: Shifting Towards Mercy

The Supreme Court's role under Article 134 of the Constitution and Section 368 of the CrPC is pivotal, as it holds the final say on death confirmations and mercy reviews. The report's decade-long analysis reveals a court increasingly skeptical of capital verdicts. The acquittal of 38 out of 153 convicts highlights a reversal rate that aligns with global critiques of the death penalty's irreversibility.

The absence of confirmations since 2023 is particularly ominous for proponents of capital punishment. In 2025, the 10 acquittals out of 19 cases represent over 52% reversal, a peak that may correlate with the court's recent benches prioritizing constitutional due process. Justices have frequently cited violations of Article 21—the right to life and personal liberty—as grounds for overturning sentences, emphasizing that death penalty must be an "exception, not the rule."

This shift is evident in landmark precedents like Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014), which expanded the scope of mercy petitions, and more recent stays on executions pending review. The report's data suggests that the Supreme Court is not just reviewing but reshaping the death penalty landscape, potentially paving the way for a de facto moratorium.

Historical and Legal Context

To fully appreciate these statistics, one must contextualize them within India's death penalty framework. Capital punishment has been part of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, since its inception, but post-independence, the Supreme Court in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) introduced the "rarest of rare" doctrine. This principle limits death sentences to cases of exceptional depravity, where life imprisonment would be inadequate.

Historically, executions have been rare; India carried out 755 executions between 1947 and 1980, but only four since 2000—the last being in 2020 for the 2012 Delhi gang rape case. The decline mirrors global trends, with 112 countries abolishing the death penalty in law or practice. However, India retains it for offenses like murder (IPC Section 302), waging war against the state, and drug trafficking.

The Square Circle Clinic's report builds on this history by quantifying appellate outcomes, revealing that trial court enthusiasm for death sentences often wanes under higher scrutiny. Factors include inconsistent application of sentencing—trial judges sometimes impose death based on public outrage rather than evidence—and evolving human rights standards influenced by international covenants like the ICCPR, which India has ratified.

Analysis: Implications of the "Rarest of Rare" Doctrine

The low confirmation rates invite a deeper analysis of the "rarest of rare" doctrine's efficacy. Critics argue that its vagueness leads to subjectivity, resulting in high reversal rates as higher courts reapply the test more rigorously. For instance, acquittals often occur when courts find that aggravating factors do not sufficiently outweigh mitigators, such as the convict's age, remorse, or family circumstances.

From a constitutional perspective, these trends reinforce Article 21's protections, aligning with the Supreme Court's stance in Barbosa Sebastian v. State (ongoing reviews emphasizing reform over retribution). The 47.46% commutation rate suggests a preference for life terms as sufficient punishment, questioning the penological justification for death.

Moreover, the data exposes systemic issues: overburdened trial courts may rush sentencings, leading to errors corrected at appellate levels. This inefficiency burdens the judiciary and prolongs agony for death row inmates, many of whom spend years in solitary confinement, violating psychological rights under international law.

The report also highlights disparities; economically disadvantaged convicts face higher imposition rates but benefit from appellate mercy, underscoring class biases in sentencing. For legal scholars, this necessitates clearer guidelines, perhaps through legislative amendments to the CrPC or IPC, to standardize "rarest of rare" applications.

Broader Impacts on Legal Practice and Policy

For legal professionals, these statistics demand strategic shifts. Criminal defense lawyers must prioritize robust trial advocacy, anticipating High Court scrutiny on evidence and sentencing reports under Section 235(2) CrPC. Prosecutors, conversely, face pressure to build ironclad cases, as appeals now routinely dismantle death verdicts.

In practice, the trends could reduce death row populations—from over 500 currently to fewer executions—easing prison system strains and allowing focus on rehabilitation. Policy-wise, abolitionists like Amnesty International may leverage this data to advocate for a moratorium, citing the judiciary's de facto abolition since 2023. Law commissions, including the 262nd Report (2015) recommending restricted use, could see renewed impetus.

Internationally, India's stance affects its UN Human Rights Council image; persistent low executions might bolster arguments against pressure from retentionist allies. Domestically, it sparks debates in Parliament on alternatives like graded life sentences without remission, potentially influencing the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (replacing IPC).

For the justice system, the report calls for judicial training on sentencing consistency and faster mercy reviews to mitigate prolonged uncertainty for convicts.

Conclusion

The Square Circle Clinic's report illuminates a judicial system in flux, where the shadow of death sentences grows fainter with each appellate layer. With High Courts confirming only 10% and the Supreme Court abstaining since 2023, India edges toward a more humane criminal justice paradigm. As legal professionals digest these figures, the imperative is clear: refine practices, advocate for reforms, and uphold the sanctity of life. Whether this leads to formal abolition remains to be seen, but the data unequivocally signals that capital punishment's days as a routine sanction are numbered.