Interpretation of Constitution has to be pragmatic: CJI
Mumbai (PTI): Chief Justice of India Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai has said the interpretation of law or the Constitution has to be "pragmatic" and in a way that suits the needs of society.
Speaking at a felicitation organised for him by the Bombay High Court here on Saturday, he also said he recently received complaints about the rude behaviour of "some of the colleagues", and urged judges to protect the institution's reputation.
Citing a past Supreme Court judgement, CJI Gavai said any law or the Constitution has to be interpreted in the context of "problems faced by the present generation."
"The interpretation has to be pragmatic. It has to be one that suits the needs of society," he added.
Judges are expected to work as per their conscience, the oath of office and law, but "should never be perturbed once the matter is decided," he said.
A judge should cut off his mind from the matter and forget what happens to it thereafter, he said.
Talking about the appointment of judges, the CJI asserted that "at no cost the independence of judiciary shall be compromised".
While making appointments either to the Supreme Court or high courts, the collegium ensures merit is maintained while there is diversity and inclusiveness, he said.
CJI Gavai complimented the Bombay High Court -- where he once practised as a lawyer and served as a judge -- for its work, and said he feels proud when people appreciate its judgements.
He also said that lately he has been "receiving a lot of complaints about the rude behaviour of some of the colleagues."
"Being a judge is not a 10 to 5 job, it's an opportunity to serve the society. It is an opportunity to serve the nation," he stressed, and urged the judges to be "true to their oath and commitment."
"Please do not do anything which brings disrepute to this august institution, whose reputation has been so laboriously built by the devotion and dedication of generations of lawyers and generations of judges," he said.
Speaking at another felicitation ceremony later on Saturday evening, the CJI said the Constitution works for every last citizen of the country, be it a judge, lawyer, an executive or a parliamentarian.
"Let us dedicate our lives to the eradication of all differences, let us give it ourselves to upholding constitutional values, let us give it ourselves towards the fulfilment of our constitutional promises," he added.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
High courts upheld only 8 per cent of death sentences; SC confirms none in recent years: Report
New Delhi (PTI): Highlighting that a high acquittal rate of death row convicts by the Supreme Court and high courts demonstrates a pattern of "erroneous or unjustified convictions", a study of 10 years of death penalty data has revealed that the top court did not confirm any death sentences in recent years.
The study by Square Circle Clinic, a criminal laws advocacy group with the NALSAR University of Law in Hyderabad, found that an overwhelming majority of death sentences imposed by trial courts did not withstand scrutiny at higher judicial levels. Acquittals far outnumbered confirmations at both the high courts and Supreme Court levels.
According to the report, the trial courts across India awarded 1,310 death sentences in 822 cases between 2016 and 2025. High courts considered 842 of these sentences in confirmation proceedings but upheld only 70 or 8.31 per cent.
In contrast, 258 death sentences (30.64 per cent) resulted in acquittals. The study noted that the acquittal rate at the high court level was nearly four times the confirmation rate.
Data showed that of the 70 death sentences confirmed by high courts, the Supreme Court decided 38 and did not uphold a single one. The apex court has confirmed no death sentences between 2023 and 2025.
"Wrongful or erroneous or unjustified convictions, then, are not random or freak accidents in the Indian criminal justice system. The data indicates they are a persistent and serious systemic concern," the report said.
Over the last decade, high courts adjudicated 1,085 death sentences in 647 cases, confirming only 106 (9.77 per cent). During this period, 326 persons in 191 cases, were acquitted.
The report attributed low confirmation rates to the appellate judiciary’s concerns regarding failures in due process. "This coincides with increased Supreme Court scrutiny of safeguards at the sentencing stage," the report said.
Of the 153 death sentences decided by the apex court over the last decade, the accused were acquitted in 38 cases. In 2025 alone, high courts overturned death sentences into acquittals in 22 out of 85 cases (over 25 per cent). The same year, Supreme Court acquitted accused persons in more than half of the death penalty cases it decided (10 out of 19), the report said.
The study highlighted that 364 persons who were ultimately acquitted "should not even have been convicted and unjustifiably suffered the trauma of death row". It added that such failures extend beyond adjudication and reflect serious lapses in investigation and prosecution.
The question of remedies for wrongful convictions remains pending before the Supreme Court. In September 2025, three persons acquitted by the apex court filed writ petitions seeking compensation from the state and argued that their wrongful convictions violated their fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
"In 2022, the Supreme Court crystallised a sentencing process in Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh , and mandated all courts to follow those guidelines before imposing or confirming a death sentence," the report read.
In 2025, the apex court held in Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. Union of India that death penalty sentencing hearings form part of the right to a fair trial and stressed that capital punishment can be imposed only after a constitutionally compliant sentencing process.
"However, even at the high courts whether the process mandated under Manoj is being complied with is in doubt,” the report said.
