Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Abolish Hanging
The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought to abolish the practice of executing death row convicts by hanging. A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta upheld the constitutional validity of hanging, refusing to refer the matter to a larger bench for reconsideration. The petition, originally filed in 2017 by senior advocate Rishi Malhotra, challenged the statutory provision under Section 354(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which is now reflected in Section 393(5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The law mandates that a person sentenced to death must be “hanged by the neck till he is dead”. The apex court affirmed the 1983 Constitution Bench judgment in the Deena vs. Union of India case, which previously validated hanging as a legal mode of execution.
Arguments for Less Painful Execution Methods
During the legal proceedings, the petitioner strongly argued that hanging is an archaic, barbaric, and exceedingly painful method of execution that directly violates a person’s fundamental right to die with dignity under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The plea highlighted that the process of hanging often involves prolonged suffering, sometimes taking up to 40 minutes for the condemned prisoner to be officially declared dead. As an alternative, the petitioner proposed adopting more humane and rapid methods such as intravenous lethal injection, firing squads, electrocution, or gas chambers. It was argued that a lethal injection or shooting takes merely a few minutes, significantly reducing the physical agony and psychological trauma associated with the traditional gallows.
Government’s Stance and Counter-Arguments
The Union Government has historically defended the practice of hanging. In its submissions, the Centre maintained that hanging remains a relatively “safe and quick” method of execution compared to the alternatives. The government pointed out the widespread issues associated with lethal injections in countries like the United States, citing instances of botched executions and ethical concerns regarding the participation of medical professionals in administering the death penalty. Previously, the Attorney General of India, R Venkataramani, informed the top court that the matter was being examined at the highest levels and that the government was considering the formation of an expert committee to study the pain, duration, and overall impact of death by hanging.
Future Possibility of an Expert Committee Review
While the Supreme Court dismissed the current petition, it explicitly stated that this decision does not close the door on future constitutional scrutiny. The bench clarified that if compelling medical, scientific, or empirical evidence emerges demonstrating that the foundational facts of the 1983 judgment have materially changed, the issue could be revisited. More importantly, the Supreme Court emphasized that its verdict does not prevent the Union Government from undertaking a comprehensive review of execution methods. The Centre remains free to constitute an expert panel comprising specialists in law, forensic medicine, criminology, and neuroscience to explore alternative execution methods. This body could determine if a modern, science-backed approach would better serve the constitutional objective of minimizing unnecessary pain and suffering while preserving the dignity of the condemned prisoner.
