Directions: Read the passage given below and answer the questions that follow by choosing the correct/most appropriate options:

On April 22, a Bench of the Supreme Court of India, led by Justice U.U. Lalit decided to critically examine the routine and abrupt way in which trial judges often impose the death penalty on convicts. The challenge before the Court in the instant case of Irfan vs State of Madhya Pradesh was to identify the mitigating circumstances and to ensure a convict-centric approach so that the imposition of capital punishment becomes rarer, and fairer, and principled.

The Court seemed to think that an individualistic approach that examines the social, economic, emotional, and genetic components that constituted the offender rather than the offense, would go a long way in evolving a just and judicious sentencing policy. According to the Court, “a ‘one size fit for all’ approach while considering mitigating factors during sentencing should end”. The Bench indicated the need for mitigation experts to assist trial courts in reaching a correct conclusion on whether one should be sent to the gallows or not.

This is a significant development that can radically alter India’s death penalty jurisprudence, by a comprehensive examination of the multi-disciplinary wisdom relating to the crime, the criminal, and the punishment. An analysis of the possible reasons to avert the death penalty is reflected in a series of recent verdicts such as Lochan Shrivas vs State of Chhattisgarh (2021) and Bhagchandra vs State of Madhya Pradesh (2021). These reasons might include socio-economic backwardness, mental health, heredity, parenting, socialization, education, etc.