What Mamla Legal Hai Gets Right And Misses About Death Penalty
What Mamla Legal Hai Gets Right And Misses About Death Penalty
By -CP ShruthiUpdate: 2026-07-05 07:30 GMT
Click the Play button to listen to article
One of the most unexpected explorations of the death penalty in recent Indian popular culture comes from Netflix’s Mamla Legal Hai. Known for its humour and everyday courtroom chaos, the show’s final episode quietly raises difficult questions about reform, punishment and justice
Mamla Legal Hai is a Netflix courtroom drama set in Delhi’s district courts. The show uses humour to highlight the chaos which abounds in legal practice, and allows a glimpse into how people negotiate and navigate law in everyday life
In the final episode of the last season,Beyond Reform, Judge VD Tyagi wrestles with a question that has troubled courts, philosophers, and societies for centuries: when does a crime become “heinous” enough to be deserving of a death sentence? In the show, Judge Tyagi is seen agonising over whether Deepak (the accused in the show) deserves death, or whether he deserves a chance at reform
Watching Tyagi, I found myself haunted by a different question altogether, one that the law itself increasingly requires courts to confront: who was Deepak before he became “the accused”, and what might that tell us about how much blame we can fairly place upon him? The episode comes tantalisingly close to this conversation, but stops just short of fully entering it
For a mainstream legal drama, the show deals with something as complex as the death penalty law in a remarkably simple and effective manner. It allows viewers to inhabit the moral uncertainty of deciding whether another human being should live or die through Tyagi’s interactions with different people in court with varying opinions and worldviews
The episode opens with a scene in Patparganj court where VD Tyagi is presiding over a trial, circling around a deeply unsettling question: should Deepak, a 24 year old convicted of murder of two children be sentenced to death by deciding he is irrevocably beyond any reform or should he be given a chance at life? He has to navigate the tension between society’s demand for justice and the fragile possibility that a human being may still be capable of becoming something other than the worst thing they have done.
The episode unfolds through a series of conversations that deepen Tyagi’s unease. The prosecutor demands death. The Munshi reminds Tyagi that the justice system believes in reform, until Tyagi with almost childlike sincerity asks: “Then why should anyone get the death penalty?” Before anyone can answer, his reader quietly voices the question that has haunted death penalty debates for decades: “Who are we to decide that someone is beyond reform?”
While Tyagi prodes over this dilemma, it is his brief conversation with the prison guard accompanying Deepak that stayed with me the most. On being asked whether Deepak is remorseful, the guard offers no easy answer. He has seen him cry, he says, but also describes him as hot tempered and prone to violence. Then comes the line that feels unexpectedly profound for a largely light hearted legal drama, “In my 30 years,” the guard tells Tyagi, “I have never met anyone who is completely bad. If you are looking for some kind of stamp or a certificate that Deepak is beyond reform, you won’t find it.” And then, almost as an afterthought, he adds: “When you see a person with their mother, they look more human than criminal.
What the prison guard hints at is not alien to the law. In fact, over the last few years, Indian courts have increasingly recognised that before deciding whether someone should live or die, judges cannot look only at the brutality of the crime. They must also understand the person who committed it. This process is called mitigation investigation, and today it has become one of the most important safeguards in Indian death penalty sentencing. Before deciding whether someone should die, courts increasingly require information about their childhood, family, education, poverty, mental health, experiences of violence, prison conduct and prospects of change towards deciding how much blame can fairly be placed upon them? When does a person become reducible to the worst thing they have done, and when must we still account for the life they have lived?
There are fleeting glimpses of this exercise in the show. We see it when the defence lawyer briefly urges the court to consider Deepak’s age or in the barely audible pleas of his parents to the lawyer. And, for a moment, in a blink and you miss it- shot of the papers before Tyagi while pronouncing judgment, where the words “mitigating circumstances” quietly appear
In my work as a mitigation investigator, I am often tasked with gathering, collating and presenting these life stories to the court by conducting extensive interviews with the prisoners, families, neighbours, teachers, prison staff, childhood friends and others important people in an individual’s life. What often emerges is a complex story. The person standing convicted of a brutal crime is often also someone who grew up amid circumstances most of us would struggle to imagine. It does not make the crime disappear but it becomes harder to believe that punishment, especially irreversible punishment, can be fairly decided without understanding the full human being behind the offence.
This is partly why as I watched Tyagi weep and visibly undone by his decision saying to his father on call, “..he was only a 24 year old child” ,I found myself wondering whether he would have arrived at the same conclusion had he known more about Deepak’s life
What Tyagi says is striking because it captures the moral discomfort of someone so young spending decades, or perhaps a lifetime, under the shadow of death for the worst moment of their life. Of course, being 24 does not make a violent crime any less grave. But most of us instinctively recognise that a 24 year old and a 50 year old do not always exercise judgment, emotional maturity, or impulse control in the same way. Young age also means one is still growing and that there is a greater possibility of change.
I also felt Tyagi’s moral burden was deepened by Deepak’s social location. One can tell the way Deepak’s parents are dressed, their hesitant presence in court, the confusion and helplessness on their faces when the conviction is pronounced; all of it seemed to suggest a young man from a background of deprivation
The point here is not that Deepak becomes any less responsible for the harm he caused because he is young or poor. Rather, it is that youth and deprivation may tell us something important about how much blame can we fairly place on them. And underlying these circumstances is a fairly simple but an uncomfortable truth; we are all dealt different cards, and many of those cards are not of our choosing. Some inherit stability, care, education, love, protection, and second chances. Others grow up amidst violence, insecurity, neglect and poverty. People remain responsible for their choices, but it is difficult to deny that the hand we are dealt shapes the possibilities available to us. These circumstances do not excuse crime. They may, however, explain why two people arrive at the same act from profoundly different lives.
I could not help but think that while Tyagi pushed to think about justice in familiar terms: what does society deserve after a crime this brutal? Does Deepak deserve death?
The uncomfortable question may be “What produced the conditions in which someone like Deepak became vulnerable to offending?” Because behind these violent acts what one will often find are fractured homes, neglected childhoods, poor schools, untreated trauma, neighbourhood violence, social abandonment, and institutions without any support
The prison guard tells Tyagi that in thirty years he has never met anyone who is completely bad. Perhaps that is what mitigation asks courts to recognise; not that people are innocent, but that they are complicated. Deepak remains responsible for what he did. But if justice asks us to look back at the act, perhaps it must also ask us to look back at the conditions that shaped the person who committed it. Mamla Legal Hai leaves us with the question of whether someone can reform. The law, increasingly, asks us to confront an even harder one: who was this person before he became “the accused”, and what does that mean for the way we judge him?
