SC Rejects Plea To Replace Hanging With ‘Less Painful’ Execution Methods

The Supreme Court has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking to replace death by hanging with alternative execution methods such as lethal injection or shooting, ruling that hanging will remain the statutory mode of capital punishment in India.

While upholding the constitutional validity of the existing framework, the bench clarified that its ruling does not permanently close the door on alternative execution methods if compelling scientific evidence emerges in the future.

Arguments over Convict Dignity and Execution Protocols

A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta held that no case was made out to refer earlier Supreme Court judgments to a larger bench, maintaining that Section 354(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure remains constitutionally valid.

The petition, filed by lawyer Rishi Malhotra, argued that hanging is an archaic and painful procedure. Malhotra submitted that declaring death after hanging can take nearly 40 minutes, whereas methods like lethal injection or shooting conclude the process within minutes.

Invoking Article 21 of the Constitution, the petitioner contended that the fundamental right to life extends to a dignified death, urging the court to align domestic law with international resolutions that mandate minimal suffering during execution.

Union Government's Position and Feasibility

During earlier hearings, Attorney General R Venkataramani informed the court that the Central Government was examining the matter and deliberating on an expert panel to study alternative methods. However, the Centre opposed granting convicts a choice between hanging and lethal injection, calling such an option practically unfeasible.

The apex court had previously observed that execution protocols ought to evolve alongside modern scientific developments, whilst acknowledging that enacting policy changes primarily falls within the purview of the legislature.

Future Constitutional Scrutiny Maintained

While declining to strike down the current law, the bench explicitly stated that its dismissal does not foreclose future judicial review.

The court clarified that the Union Government remains free to constitute an expert committee to review alternative execution techniques. It added that fresh constitutional scrutiny could take place if robust scientific, medical, or empirical evidence arises demonstrating that modern alternatives significantly reduce suffering compared to hanging.