Law & Justice · September 2026
23 Death Sentences in 5 Months.
A single sessions judge in Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh sentenced 23 people to death in approximately five months. The Supreme Court has very clear rules about how death sentences must be imposed. Less than 4% of trial court death sentences since 2022 follow those rules. This is not a small procedural problem. It is a constitutional crisis hiding in courtrooms.
A death sentence is the most irreversible act a court can perform. It ends a life. Once carried out, no appellate judgment can undo it. For this reason, the Supreme Court of India has built, over decades, a careful architecture of procedural safeguards — specific requirements that a court must satisfy before it condemns a person to death. These are not suggestions. They are binding law.
Between approximately February and July 2026, the Additional District and Sessions Judge (ADJ) in Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh handed down death sentences to 23 people across nine separate judgments. The sentences were imposed in roughly five months.
Researchers at NALSAR University of Law examined those nine judgments carefully. What they found should concern every person who believes that the law means what it says — regardless of their views on capital punishment.
What the Supreme Court Requires Before a Death Sentence
To understand what went wrong in Muzaffarnagar, you first need to understand what the law requires. Indian law on the death penalty has evolved through a series of landmark Supreme Court judgments that have progressively made the process more rigorous and individualised.
What Is the “Rarest of Rare” Doctrine?
The Legal Standard That Governs Every Death Sentence in India
In 1980, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court decided the case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab. This is the foundational death penalty judgment in Indian law. The court held that the death penalty should be imposed only in the “rarest of rare” cases — meaning it should be exceptional, not routine.
More importantly, the court laid down a two-part test that must be applied every time a court considers imposing death:
1. The nature of the crime — How brutal, heinous, or shocking was the offence? This is the aggravating side of the balance.
2. The circumstances of the accused — Who is this person? What is their background, mental state, social history, possibility of reform? This is the mitigating side.
The court was explicit: a judge cannot impose death just because a crime was horrific. They must also examine the person who committed it and determine whether life imprisonment would be “unquestionably foreclosed” — meaning there is no possibility of reform or redemption. This individualised assessment is not optional. It is constitutionally required.
For decades after Bachan Singh, there was a gap between the law’s requirement and courtroom practice. Mitigation — the investigation of an accused person’s background, mental health, and social circumstances — was often reduced to the judge asking the accused at sentencing whether they had “anything to say.” The accused usually said nothing meaningful. The judge moved on. Bachan Singh’s requirement of individualised assessment became, in practice, a formality.
Manoj v. State of MP (2022): The Game-Changing Judgment
In May 2022, the Supreme Court issued a landmark judgment in Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh that tried to fix the gap between the Bachan Singh standard and actual practice. The court laid down a detailed, mandatory procedural framework that every trial court must follow before imposing death.
The Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh Framework — What a Court Must Do Before Imposing Death
The Supreme Court held in Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh that “meaningful consideration of mitigating circumstances” requires the court to have actual documentary material before it. This means the following reports must be sought and examined:
- Probation officer’s report — assessing the accused’s social background, family circumstances, community context
- Prison authority’s report — on the accused’s conduct and behaviour while in custody
- Psychological and psychiatric assessment — evaluating mental health, any history of trauma, cognitive functioning
- Mitigation report from the defence — a detailed report on the accused’s socio-economic history, childhood, education, employment, relationships, and personal background
The purpose of these reports is to allow the court to genuinely assess: who is this person, what formed them, can they reform, and does the death penalty serve any purpose that life imprisonment would not? Asking the accused “do you have anything to say?” in court does not fulfil this requirement.
What Is Mitigation?
Why a Person’s Background Matters in Sentencing
“Mitigation” in criminal law refers to facts about a person or their circumstances that do not excuse or justify the crime but reduce the severity of the punishment that is appropriate. Mitigating factors might include: a history of abuse or trauma, extreme poverty, a mental illness, youth, lack of prior criminal history, remorse, or evidence of strong possibility of reform.
Mitigation is not about feeling sorry for a murderer. It is about answering the constitutional question: is this person so irredeemably dangerous and so incapable of reform that society is justified in ending their life?
That question cannot be answered by looking only at what the person did. It requires looking at who they are — and that requires investigation, documentation, and evidence. The Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment mandated that this investigation must actually happen before any death sentence is pronounced.
Then, in August 2025, the Supreme Court reinforced the Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh framework in Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. Union of India. The court held explicitly that imposing a death sentence without following the safeguards mandated in Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh would be a violation of the accused’s fundamental rights — not merely a procedural irregularity, but a constitutional violation.
What the Muzaffarnagar Judgments Actually Show
Against this legal background, researchers examined the nine Muzaffarnagar death sentence judgments. Their findings are striking — not because the trial judge ignored Supreme Court precedents, but because he cited them extensively while ignoring what they actually require.
The judgments repeatedly cite the same set of Supreme Court cases — including Bachan Singh — in much the same sequence, often using the same excerpts. The citations are there. The reasoning is not.
When the judgments come to the actual decision — should this person be sentenced to death or to life imprisonment — the reasoning rests almost entirely on the nature and circumstances of the crime. The crimes are described in detail. Their brutality is documented. The offences are characterised as heinous. Death is imposed.
What is absent from the judgments is any indication that the Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh framework was followed. There is no evidence that probation reports, prison authority reports, psychological assessments, or mitigation reports were obtained or considered. There is no individualised examination of who the accused persons are — their backgrounds, mental states, histories, or possibilities of reform. The law as laid down by Bachan Singh and reinforced by Manoj was, in the key moment, simply not applied.
The National Picture: Only 4% Compliance
The Muzaffarnagar cases are troubling. The national data is alarming.
The National Compliance Picture — NALSAR Data
- Research period: 2023 to 2025 (after the May 2022 Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment)
- Total trial court death sentences analysed: 216 cases
- Cases that complied with Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh requirements: 8 cases
- Compliance rate: less than 4%
- Cases not following mandatory Supreme Court procedure: more than 96%
Source: The Square Circle Clinic, NALSAR University of Law
Read that again. After the Supreme Court issued a detailed, specific, mandatory framework for how death sentences must be imposed — a framework it later elevated to the status of a fundamental right requirement — over 96 percent of trial courts that imposed death sentences in the following three years simply did not follow it.
This is not a few judges making isolated errors. This is a near-total systemic failure to implement a binding Supreme Court precedent in the highest-stakes legal context that exists. It raises profound questions about how India’s trial courts understand their relationship to Supreme Court authority.
What Happens to These 23 People Now?
Under Indian law, every death sentence imposed by a trial court must be confirmed by the relevant High Court before it can be carried out. This is called the “confirmation” process. The High Court reviews the case afresh — it examines both the conviction and the sentence independently, and it has the power to uphold, modify, or set aside the death sentence.
What Is Appellate Review of Death Sentences?
Why a Trial Court Death Sentence Is Not the Final Word
In India, a person sentenced to death does not go to the gallows on the basis of the trial court’s verdict alone. The law requires multiple layers of judicial review:
- High Court confirmation: Every death sentence is automatically referred to the High Court for confirmation. The High Court reviews the trial court’s judgment and must independently satisfy itself that the death sentence is warranted.
- Appeal to the Supreme Court: The accused (and the state) can further appeal to the Supreme Court.
- Mercy petition: Even after the Supreme Court, a condemned person can file a mercy petition with the Governor of the State and then the President of India.
This multi-layered process reflects the principle that the irreversibility of death demands an exceptional degree of care at every stage.
Virtually none of the 23 Muzaffarnagar death sentences will ultimately be upheld, precisely because they do not comply with the Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh framework. The Allahabad High Court will review them, find the Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh requirements unmet, and will be obliged to reject the sentences as constitutionally invalid.
But this will take years. The 23 people condemned in those Muzaffarnagar courtrooms will spend those years under the shadow of a death sentence that was almost certainly going to be overturned from the moment it was imposed. They will wait. Their families will wait. The legal process will grind on.
The Bigger Problem: What These Cases Reveal About the System
The Muzaffarnagar judgments, and the NALSAR data behind them, point to three distinct but interconnected failures.
First: A failure of legal training. If more than 96 percent of death sentence judgments are non-compliant with a four-year-old Supreme Court precedent, something has failed in how that precedent is being communicated to and absorbed by trial courts. The Manoj judgment is not obscure or difficult — it is one of the most discussed Supreme Court rulings of recent years. Trial judges who impose death sentences should know it and apply it. That most apparently do not suggests a systemic gap in judicial training and oversight.
Second: A conflation of crime and criminal. The temptation in severe cases is obvious. A crime has been committed that shocks the conscience. A judge who lets the horror of the crime dominate the sentencing reasoning is, in human terms, understandable. But it is legally wrong. The Bachan Singh standard exists precisely because the severity of a crime is not, by itself, sufficient justification for killing the person who committed it. A judge who sentences on the basis of crime severity alone — however egregious the crime — is not applying the law. They are substituting their moral reaction for it.
Third: A confusion about what judicial independence means. Judicial independence cannot and does not mean judicial freedom from the law. A trial court judge has independence from external political or personal pressure. They do not have independence from binding Supreme Court precedent. The law laid down in Bachan Singh, Manoj, and Dupare is not optional. It is not something a trial judge can decide to weigh against their own philosophy of punishment. It is binding.
It means not the courage to impose a death sentence when a crime is horrible — that, in fact, requires very little courage, because the public and the judge’s own instinct may support it. The real courage is in following the law even when it demands more from you, even when it complicates the obvious response, even when it requires you to look at the person who committed the crime and not just at what they did.
Twenty-three people in Muzaffarnagar are currently under death sentences that were almost certainly imposed in violation of the Constitution. They will probably not be executed. But they will wait, for years, for the appellate process to confirm what the law already says. That is not justice. That is a legal system failing to keep its own house in order.
Receive Daily Updates
Recent Posts
The United Nations has shaped so much of global co-operation and regulation that we wouldn’t recognise our world today without the UN’s pervasive role in it. So many small details of our lives – such as postage and copyright laws – are subject to international co-operation nurtured by the UN.
In its 75th year, however, the UN is in a difficult moment as the world faces climate crisis, a global pandemic, great power competition, trade wars, economic depression and a wider breakdown in international co-operation.
Still, the UN has faced tough times before – over many decades during the Cold War, the Security Council was crippled by deep tensions between the US and the Soviet Union. The UN is not as sidelined or divided today as it was then. However, as the relationship between China and the US sours, the achievements of global co-operation are being eroded.
The way in which people speak about the UN often implies a level of coherence and bureaucratic independence that the UN rarely possesses. A failure of the UN is normally better understood as a failure of international co-operation.
We see this recently in the UN’s inability to deal with crises from the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar, to civil conflict in Syria, and the failure of the Security Council to adopt a COVID-19 resolution calling for ceasefires in conflict zones and a co-operative international response to the pandemic.
The UN administration is not primarily to blame for these failures; rather, the problem is the great powers – in the case of COVID-19, China and the US – refusing to co-operate.
Where states fail to agree, the UN is powerless to act.
Marking the 75th anniversary of the official formation of the UN, when 50 founding nations signed the UN Charter on June 26, 1945, we look at some of its key triumphs and resounding failures.
Five successes
1. Peacekeeping
The United Nations was created with the goal of being a collective security organisation. The UN Charter establishes that the use of force is only lawful either in self-defence or if authorised by the UN Security Council. The Security Council’s five permanent members, being China, US, UK, Russia and France, can veto any such resolution.
The UN’s consistent role in seeking to manage conflict is one of its greatest successes.
A key component of this role is peacekeeping. The UN under its second secretary-general, the Swedish statesman Dag Hammarskjöld – who was posthumously awarded the Nobel Peace prize after he died in a suspicious plane crash – created the concept of peacekeeping. Hammarskjöld was responding to the 1956 Suez Crisis, in which the US opposed the invasion of Egypt by its allies Israel, France and the UK.
UN peacekeeping missions involve the use of impartial and armed UN forces, drawn from member states, to stabilise fragile situations. “The essence of peacekeeping is the use of soldiers as a catalyst for peace rather than as the instruments of war,” said then UN Secretary-General Javier Pérez de Cuéllar, when the forces won the 1988 Nobel Peace Prize following missions in conflict zones in the Middle East, Africa, Asia, Central America and Europe.
However, peacekeeping also counts among the UN’s major failures.
2. Law of the Sea
Negotiated between 1973 and 1982, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) set up the current international law of the seas. It defines states’ rights and creates concepts such as exclusive economic zones, as well as procedures for the settling of disputes, new arrangements for governing deep sea bed mining, and importantly, new provisions for the protection of marine resources and ocean conservation.
Mostly, countries have abided by the convention. There are various disputes that China has over the East and South China Seas which present a conflict between power and law, in that although UNCLOS creates mechanisms for resolving disputes, a powerful state isn’t necessarily going to submit to those mechanisms.
Secondly, on the conservation front, although UNCLOS is a huge step forward, it has failed to adequately protect oceans that are outside any state’s control. Ocean ecosystems have been dramatically transformed through overfishing. This is an ecological catastrophe that UNCLOS has slowed, but failed to address comprehensively.
3. Decolonisation
The idea of racial equality and of a people’s right to self-determination was discussed in the wake of World War I and rejected. After World War II, however, those principles were endorsed within the UN system, and the Trusteeship Council, which monitored the process of decolonisation, was one of the initial bodies of the UN.
Although many national independence movements only won liberation through bloody conflicts, the UN has overseen a process of decolonisation that has transformed international politics. In 1945, around one third of the world’s population lived under colonial rule. Today, there are less than 2 million people living in colonies.
When it comes to the world’s First Nations, however, the UN generally has done little to address their concerns, aside from the non-binding UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples of 2007.
4. Human rights
The Human Rights Declaration of 1948 for the first time set out fundamental human rights to be universally protected, recognising that the “inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”.
Since 1948, 10 human rights treaties have been adopted – including conventions on the rights of children and migrant workers, and against torture and discrimination based on gender and race – each monitored by its own committee of independent experts.
The language of human rights has created a new framework for thinking about the relationship between the individual, the state and the international system. Although some people would prefer that political movements focus on ‘liberation’ rather than ‘rights’, the idea of human rights has made the individual person a focus of national and international attention.
5. Free trade
Depending on your politics, you might view the World Trade Organisation as a huge success, or a huge failure.
The WTO creates a near-binding system of international trade law with a clear and efficient dispute resolution process.
The majority Australian consensus is that the WTO is a success because it has been good for Australian famers especially, through its winding back of subsidies and tariffs.
However, the WTO enabled an era of globalisation which is now politically controversial.
Recently, the US has sought to disrupt the system. In addition to the trade war with China, the Trump Administration has also refused to appoint tribunal members to the WTO’s Appellate Body, so it has crippled the dispute resolution process. Of course, the Trump Administration is not the first to take issue with China’s trade strategies, which include subsidises for ‘State Owned Enterprises’ and demands that foreign firms transfer intellectual property in exchange for market access.
The existence of the UN has created a forum where nations can discuss new problems, and climate change is one of them. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was set up in 1988 to assess climate science and provide policymakers with assessments and options. In 1992, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change created a permanent forum for negotiations.
However, despite an international scientific body in the IPCC, and 165 signatory nations to the climate treaty, global greenhouse gas emissions have continued to increase.
Under the Paris Agreement, even if every country meets its greenhouse gas emission targets we are still on track for ‘dangerous warming’. Yet, no major country is even on track to meet its targets; while emissions will probably decline this year as a result of COVID-19, atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will still increase.
This illustrates a core conundrum of the UN in that it opens the possibility of global cooperation, but is unable to constrain states from pursuing their narrowly conceived self-interests. Deep co-operation remains challenging.
Five failures of the UN
1. Peacekeeping
During the Bosnian War, Dutch peacekeeping forces stationed in the town of Srebrenica, declared a ‘safe area’ by the UN in 1993, failed in 1995 to stop the massacre of more than 8000 Muslim men and boys by Bosnian Serb forces. This is one of the most widely discussed examples of the failures of international peacekeeping operations.
On the massacre’s 10th anniversary, then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan wrote that the UN had “made serious errors of judgement, rooted in a philosophy of impartiality”, contributing to a mass murder that would “haunt our history forever”.
If you look at some of the other infamous failures of peacekeeping missions – in places such as Rwanda, Somalia and Angola – it is the limited powers given to peacekeeping operations that have resulted in those failures.
2. The invasion of Iraq
The invasion of Iraq by the US in 2003, which was unlawful and without Security Council authorisation, reflects the fact that the UN is has very limited capacity to constrain the actions of great powers.
The Security Council designers created the veto power so that any of the five permanent members could reject a Council resolution, so in that way it is programmed to fail when a great power really wants to do something that the international community generally condemns.
In the case of the Iraq invasion, the US didn’t veto a resolution, but rather sought authorisation that it did not get. The UN, if you go by the idea of collective security, should have responded by defending Iraq against this unlawful use of force.
The invasion proved a humanitarian disaster with the loss of more than 400,000 lives, and many believe that it led to the emergence of the terrorist Islamic State.
3. Refugee crises
The UN brokered the 1951 Refugee Convention to address the plight of people displaced in Europe due to World War II; years later, the 1967 Protocol removed time and geographical restrictions so that the Convention can now apply universally (although many countries in Asia have refused to sign it, owing in part to its Eurocentric origins).
Despite these treaties, and the work of the UN High Commission for Refugees, there is somewhere between 30 and 40 million refugees, many of them, such as many Palestinians, living for decades outside their homelands. This is in addition to more than 40 million people displaced within their own countries.
While for a long time refugee numbers were reducing, in recent years, particularly driven by the Syrian conflict, there have been increases in the number of people being displaced.
During the COVID-19 crisis, boatloads of Rohingya refugees were turned away by port after port. This tragedy has echoes of pre-World War II when ships of Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi Germany were refused entry by multiple countries.
And as a catastrophe of a different kind looms, there is no international framework in place for responding to people who will be displaced by rising seas and other effects of climate change.
4. Conflicts without end
Across the world, there is a shopping list of unresolved civil conflicts and disputed territories.
Palestine and Kashmir are two of the longest-running failures of the UN to resolve disputed lands. More recent, ongoing conflicts include the civil wars in Syria and Yemen.
The common denominator of unresolved conflicts is either division among the great powers, or a lack of international interest due to the geopolitical stakes not being sufficiently high. For instance, the inaction during the Rwandan civil war in the 1990s was not due to a division among great powers, but rather a lack of political will to engage.
In Syria, by contrast, Russia and the US have opposing interests and back opposing sides: Russia backs the government of the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, whereas the US does not.
5. Acting like it’s 1945
The UN is increasingly out of step with the reality of geopolitics today.
The permanent members of the Security Council reflect the division of power internationally at the end of World War II. The continuing exclusion of Germany, Japan, and rising powers such as India and Indonesia, reflects the failure to reflect the changing balance of power.
Also, bodies such as the IMF and the World Bank, which are part of the UN system, continue to be dominated by the West. In response, China has created potential rival institutions such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.
Western domination of UN institutions undermines their credibility. However, a more fundamental problem is that institutions designed in 1945 are a poor fit with the systemic global challenges – of which climate change is foremost – that we face today.