The correct answer is (b) Bachan Singh V/s State of Punjab.
Section 303 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) states that “whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or with imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.” In the case of Bachan Singh V/s State of Punjab, the Supreme Court of India held that Section 303 of the IPC was unconstitutional, as it violated the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court held that the death penalty could only be imposed in the rarest of rare cases, and that Section 303 of the IPC did not provide any guidelines for determining when the death penalty should be imposed.
The Court also held that the death penalty was not a necessary punishment for murder, and that there were other, less severe punishments that could be imposed, such as life imprisonment. The Court’s decision in Bachan Singh V/s State of Punjab was a landmark ruling, and it has had a significant impact on the use of the death penalty in India.
The other options are incorrect. Option (a), Mithu V/s State of Punjab, is incorrect because in that case the Supreme Court of India upheld the constitutionality of Section 303 of the IPC. Option (c), Jagdish V/s State of M.P., is incorrect because in that case the Supreme Court of India did not rule on the constitutionality of Section 303 of the IPC. Option (d), None of the above, is incorrect because Section 303 of the IPC was indeed declared unconstitutional in the case of Bachan Singh V/s State of Punjab.