{"id":84591,"date":"2025-06-01T02:39:29","date_gmt":"2025-06-01T02:39:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/?p=84591"},"modified":"2025-06-01T02:39:29","modified_gmt":"2025-06-01T02:39:29","slug":"in-which-one-of-the-following-judgments-of-the-constitutional-bench-of","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/in-which-one-of-the-following-judgments-of-the-constitutional-bench-of\/","title":{"rendered":"In which one of the following judgments of the Constitutional Bench of"},"content":{"rendered":"

In which one of the following judgments of the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court of India, the ‘rarest of rare’ principle in the award of death penalty was first laid down ?<\/p>\n

[amp_mcq option1=”Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980)” option2=”Gopalanachari v. State of Kerala (1980)” option3=”Dr. Upendra Baxi v. State of UP (1983)” option4=”Tukaram v. State of Maharashtra (1979)” correct=”option1″]<\/p>\n

\n
\n
This question was previously asked in<\/div>\n
UPSC CDS-1 – 2016<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
Download PDF<\/a>Attempt Online<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\nThe ‘rarest of rare’ principle for awarding the death penalty was first laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the judgment of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980).
\n<\/section>\n
\n– In the Bachan Singh case, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the death penalty but ruled that it should only be imposed in the ‘rarest of rare’ cases.
\n– The judgment provided guidelines for courts to follow while deciding whether to impose the death penalty, emphasizing that life imprisonment is the rule and the death sentence is an exception.
\n– The ‘rarest of rare’ doctrine requires courts to consider aggravating and mitigating circumstances and conclude that the alternative sentence of life imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed.
\n<\/section>\n
\nOther cases listed are not primarily associated with the origin of the ‘rarest of rare’ principle. Gopalanachari v. State of Kerala is also an IPC\/CrPC related case. Dr. Upendra Baxi v. State of UP relates to prison conditions and human rights. Tukaram v. State of Maharashtra (also known as the Mathura rape case) led to significant amendments in India’s rape law.
\n<\/section>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In which one of the following judgments of the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court of India, the ‘rarest of rare’ principle in the award of death penalty was first laid down ? [amp_mcq option1=”Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980)” option2=”Gopalanachari v. State of Kerala (1980)” option3=”Dr. Upendra Baxi v. State of UP (1983)” … <\/p>\n

Detailed SolutionIn which one of the following judgments of the Constitutional Bench of<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1087],"tags":[1098,1099,1180],"class_list":["post-84591","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-upsc-cds-1","tag-1098","tag-indian-polity-and-governance","tag-the-supreme-court","no-featured-image-padding"],"yoast_head":"\nIn which one of the following judgments of the Constitutional Bench of<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The 'rarest of rare' principle for awarding the death penalty was first laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the judgment of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980). - In the Bachan Singh case, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the death penalty but ruled that it should only be imposed in the 'rarest of rare' cases. - The judgment provided guidelines for courts to follow while deciding whether to impose the death penalty, emphasizing that life imprisonment is the rule and the death sentence is an exception. - The 'rarest of rare' doctrine requires courts to consider aggravating and mitigating circumstances and conclude that the alternative sentence of life imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/in-which-one-of-the-following-judgments-of-the-constitutional-bench-of\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"In which one of the following judgments of the Constitutional Bench of\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The 'rarest of rare' principle for awarding the death penalty was first laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the judgment of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980). - In the Bachan Singh case, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the death penalty but ruled that it should only be imposed in the 'rarest of rare' cases. - The judgment provided guidelines for courts to follow while deciding whether to impose the death penalty, emphasizing that life imprisonment is the rule and the death sentence is an exception. - The 'rarest of rare' doctrine requires courts to consider aggravating and mitigating circumstances and conclude that the alternative sentence of life imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/in-which-one-of-the-following-judgments-of-the-constitutional-bench-of\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"MCQ and Quiz for Exams\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-06-01T02:39:29+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"rawan239\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"rawan239\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"1 minute\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"In which one of the following judgments of the Constitutional Bench of","description":"The 'rarest of rare' principle for awarding the death penalty was first laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the judgment of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980). - In the Bachan Singh case, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the death penalty but ruled that it should only be imposed in the 'rarest of rare' cases. - The judgment provided guidelines for courts to follow while deciding whether to impose the death penalty, emphasizing that life imprisonment is the rule and the death sentence is an exception. - The 'rarest of rare' doctrine requires courts to consider aggravating and mitigating circumstances and conclude that the alternative sentence of life imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/in-which-one-of-the-following-judgments-of-the-constitutional-bench-of\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"In which one of the following judgments of the Constitutional Bench of","og_description":"The 'rarest of rare' principle for awarding the death penalty was first laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the judgment of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980). - In the Bachan Singh case, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the death penalty but ruled that it should only be imposed in the 'rarest of rare' cases. - The judgment provided guidelines for courts to follow while deciding whether to impose the death penalty, emphasizing that life imprisonment is the rule and the death sentence is an exception. - The 'rarest of rare' doctrine requires courts to consider aggravating and mitigating circumstances and conclude that the alternative sentence of life imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed.","og_url":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/in-which-one-of-the-following-judgments-of-the-constitutional-bench-of\/","og_site_name":"MCQ and Quiz for Exams","article_published_time":"2025-06-01T02:39:29+00:00","author":"rawan239","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"rawan239","Est. reading time":"1 minute"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/in-which-one-of-the-following-judgments-of-the-constitutional-bench-of\/","url":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/in-which-one-of-the-following-judgments-of-the-constitutional-bench-of\/","name":"In which one of the following judgments of the Constitutional Bench of","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/#website"},"datePublished":"2025-06-01T02:39:29+00:00","dateModified":"2025-06-01T02:39:29+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/#\/schema\/person\/5807dafeb27d2ec82344d6cbd6c3d209"},"description":"The 'rarest of rare' principle for awarding the death penalty was first laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the judgment of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980). - In the Bachan Singh case, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the death penalty but ruled that it should only be imposed in the 'rarest of rare' cases. - The judgment provided guidelines for courts to follow while deciding whether to impose the death penalty, emphasizing that life imprisonment is the rule and the death sentence is an exception. - The 'rarest of rare' doctrine requires courts to consider aggravating and mitigating circumstances and conclude that the alternative sentence of life imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/in-which-one-of-the-following-judgments-of-the-constitutional-bench-of\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/in-which-one-of-the-following-judgments-of-the-constitutional-bench-of\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/in-which-one-of-the-following-judgments-of-the-constitutional-bench-of\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"UPSC CDS-1","item":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/category\/upsc-cds-1\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"In which one of the following judgments of the Constitutional Bench of"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/#website","url":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/","name":"MCQ and Quiz for Exams","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/#\/schema\/person\/5807dafeb27d2ec82344d6cbd6c3d209","name":"rawan239","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/761a7274f9cce048fa5b921221e7934820d74514df93ef195a9d22af0c1c9001?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/761a7274f9cce048fa5b921221e7934820d74514df93ef195a9d22af0c1c9001?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"rawan239"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com"],"url":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/author\/rawan239\/"}]}},"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/84591","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=84591"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/84591\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=84591"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=84591"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/exam.pscnotes.com\/mcq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=84591"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}