Higher Courts Overturn Majority of India’s Death Sentences, Study Flags Systemic Flaws

A decade-long analysis of India’s death penalty cases has exposed a stark judicial pattern: the vast majority of death sentences imposed by trial courts are being overturned or dismissed at higher judicial levels, raising profound concerns about systemic failures in criminal adjudication. The study, conducted by Square Circle Clinic in collaboration with NALSAR University of Law, suggests that wrongful convictions or unsustainable capital verdicts are not rare anomalies but recurring outcomes within the justice system.

Between 2016 and 2025, trial courts across India delivered 1,310 death sentences in 822 cases. However, once these cases reached high courts for mandatory confirmation , only 70 sentences, just over 8 per cent, were upheld. In contrast, 258 resulted in outright acquittals . The acquittal rate at the high court level was nearly four times the confirmation rate, signalling deep appellate skepticism about the evidentiary standards and procedural integrity of trial-level convictions.

The trend becomes even more pronounced at the level of the Supreme Court of India. Of the 70 death sentences confirmed by high courts, the apex court decided 38 and did not uphold a single death penalty . From 2023 to 2025, the Supreme Court confirmed none. In 2025 alone, high courts overturned death sentences into acquittals in over a quarter of the cases they examined, while the Supreme Court acquitted accused persons in more than half of the capital cases it ruled on.

Legal experts attribute this shift to heightened scrutiny of due process and sentencing safeguards . In Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022), the court mandated a structured sentencing framework requiring consideration of mitigating factors such as mental health, socio-economic background, and the possibility of reform. Later, in Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. Union of India (2025), it ruled that sentencing hearings form part of the constitutional right to a fair trial under Article 21 .

Appellate courts are also increasingly identifying investigative lapses , unreliable witness testimony, weak forensic foundations, and inadequate legal representation as grounds for reversal. Given the irreversible nature of capital punishment, judges appear to be exercising greater caution, reflecting growing concern over miscarriages of justice.

The study highlights that 364 individuals acquitted had nonetheless endured the psychological trauma of death row. With compensation petitions for wrongful convictions now pending before the Supreme Court, the debate has shifted beyond sentencing to accountability and reform. Analysts argue that stricter compliance with sentencing protocols, improved forensic standards, stronger legal aid systems, and statutory remedies are urgently needed to prevent future miscarriages of justice.