New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking to replace execution by hanging with alternative methods such as intravenous lethal injection, shooting, or electrocution.
A two-judge bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta held that the petitioner failed to establish a sufficient basis to reconsider the landmark three-judge bench precedent in Deena v. Union of India (1983), which had upheld the constitutional validity of hanging.
The petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by advocate Rishi Malhotra, specifically challenged Section 354(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 393(5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita), which prescribes that a death row convict be "hanged by the neck till he is dead". Malhotra argued that execution by hanging is barbaric, inhuman, and causes prolonged suffering, taking up to 40 minutes to declare a person dead. He asserted that alternative methods, such as intravenous lethal injection or shooting, terminate life within five minutes and would better uphold the fundamental right to die with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Central Government opposed the plea, presenting a counter-affidavit which stated that hanging remains the safest, quickest, and most certain method of execution. The Union argued that hanging is simple to execute, eliminates the risk of a lingering death, and is free from factors that unnecessarily sharpen the poignancy of the prisoner's apprehension. Additionally, the Centre noted that suggestions to offer convicts a choice between hanging and lethal injection were "not practically feasible".
While dismissing the writ petition, the bench emphasized that its decision is not the final word on the matter and does not foreclose future judicial review. The court also clarified that constitutional interpretation is organic and must remain responsive to scientific advancements and evolving legal doctrines. If compelling scientific, medical, or empirical evidence arises in the future to materially displace the factual findings of the Deena case, the issue may undergo fresh constitutional scrutiny.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court observed that the Central Government is fully empowered to initiate a comprehensive review of the current execution process. The court suggested that the Union could establish an expert body comprising specialists in law, forensic medicine, neuroscience, penology, and allied disciplines. This committee would examine if any alternative method of execution could better serve the constitutional objective of minimizing pain while preserving the dignity of the condemned prisoner.
Attorney General R. Venkataramani had previously informed the court that the Union was indeed deliberating upon the composition of an expert committee to examine the feasibility of alternative execution methods. Project 39A of the National Law University, Delhi, which intervened in the matter, had submitted that lethal injection has itself faced significant failure rates and complications in foreign jurisdictions like the United States. Ultimately, the court chose not to interfere with the current statutory provision, maintaining hanging as the sole legal method of execution in India for now.
Case title: Rishi Malhotra v. Union of India [W.P.(Crl.) No. 145/2017]
