The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to issue any judicial mandate for replacing hanging with any other “less painful or humane” method of execution and affirmed the constitutional validity of the hearing as a, but left the door open for the Union government to examine alternatives in future in light of scientific and technological developments.
A bench of justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta held that no case was made out for reconsidering the top court’s 1983 Constitution Bench judgment in Deena @ Deena Dayal vs Union of India, which upheld hanging as a constitutionally valid mode of executing a death sentence. The judgment came on a petition filed by senior advocate Rishi Malhotra, appearing in person, challenging the constitutionality of execution by hanging under Section 354(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, now reflected in Section 393(5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Malhotra had argued that hanging was an archaic and painful method of execution and violated the right to life with dignity under Article 21. The issue had been before the Supreme Court since 2017.
The court further observed that nothing in its judgment prevented the Union government from reviewing the existing method and considering an alternative aligned with scientific developments, neurological changes or other future developments that could minimise unnecessary pain while preserving the dignity of condemned prisoners. The provision mandates that a death sentence be carried out by hanging. He had urged the court either to strike down or read down the statutory provision and replace hanging with a more humane alternative, including by allowing condemned prisoners a choice in the mode of execution. During the proceedings, the Union government had informed the court that the question of alternative methods was being examined at the highest level by a committee constituted for the purpose. When the matter was heard in January, the bench had questioned whether deciding upon a less painful method of execution fell within the domain of a constitutional court and whether the judiciary could direct the executive to alter a method prescribed by statute .
