The Supreme Court of India has dismissed a petition challenging the constitutional validity of hanging as the method of execution for persons sentenced to death. The judgment was delivered on August 18, 2026, by a bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta. The petition, filed by Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra, sought the abolition of hanging and requested the Court to direct the adoption of alternative methods of execution that could potentially cause less pain and suffering. While the Supreme Court declined to declare hanging unconstitutional, it made it clear that its decision would not prevent the Union Government from examining alternative methods of execution through an expert body. The Court also left open the possibility of future constitutional scrutiny if compelling medical or scientific evidence emerges that warrants reconsideration of the issue.
The case arose from a constitutional challenge to Section 354(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides that when a person is sentenced to death, the sentence must direct that the prisoner “be hanged by the neck till he is dead.” The petitioner argued that this statutory method of execution violates fundamental constitutional guarantees, particularly Article 21, which protects the right to life and personal liberty. According to the petition, even though the death penalty itself may be constitutionally permissible in certain circumstances, the State's manner of carrying out the sentence must still satisfy constitutional requirements of fairness, dignity and freedom from unnecessary cruelty.
The petition sought two significant declarations from the Supreme Court. First, it requested that Section 354(5) CrPC be declared unconstitutional on the ground that hanging is discriminatory, cruel and violative of Article 21, besides being inconsistent with the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench in Gian Kaur. Second, it sought recognition of a right to die through a dignified procedure as a fundamental right within the framework of Article 21. The petition therefore did not merely question the technical procedure of hanging; it raised a broader constitutional question concerning the responsibility of the State to ensure that even the execution of a death sentence is conducted in a manner consistent with human dignity.
The petitioner particularly challenged the physical suffering allegedly associated with hanging. The petition claimed that the execution process under the existing system could take a considerable period before death is formally confirmed. It contrasted this with other proposed methods, including intravenous lethal injection and shooting, which the petitioner argued could result in death within a much shorter period. On this basis, the petitioner contended that hanging could amount to prolonged and unnecessary suffering and therefore should no longer remain the legally prescribed method of execution. The plea sought alternatives including lethal injection, shooting, electrocution and gas-based execution methods.
Another important argument advanced before the Court concerned international standards relating to capital punishment. The petitioner relied upon resolutions adopted by the United Nations Economic and Social Council, particularly the principle that where capital punishment exists, it should be carried out in a manner that causes the minimum possible suffering. The argument was that India's constitutional commitment to dignity and personal liberty should be interpreted consistently with the broader international concern regarding unnecessary pain in the implementation of capital punishment. The petitioner therefore sought to place the method of execution within the larger constitutional and human-rights framework rather than treating it merely as a matter of prison procedure.
The issue had been under consideration by the Supreme Court for several years. In May 2023, Attorney General R. Venkataramani informed the Court that the Union Government had considered the possibility of constituting an expert committee to examine whether a better method of executing death sentences was available. The proposal indicated that the Government itself was examining the question at a policy level. The Attorney General had stated that the Government was considering the composition of such an expert body. This development became significant because it demonstrated that the question of the method of execution was not necessarily closed merely because the existing statutory provision continued to prescribe hanging.
During the proceedings, the possibility of allowing death-row prisoners to choose an alternative method was also discussed. The petitioner had argued in favour of lethal injection and pointed to its use in several jurisdictions, including the United States. The submission was that a condemned prisoner could potentially be given an option between hanging and another legally approved method if the alternative were considered quicker and less painful. The petitioner also referred to the practice within the armed forces where, according to the submissions, alternatives may be available in particular circumstances. However, the Union Government did not support the suggestion of giving death-row prisoners a choice regarding the mode of execution. The Supreme Court had earlier expressed concern over the Government's opposition to such an option.
At the same time, the proceedings also brought attention to the limitations of some of the proposed alternatives. Project 39A made submissions concerning lethal injection and examined the experience of jurisdictions where it has been used extensively. It pointed out that lethal injection cannot automatically be assumed to be a completely painless or successful method. Its international experience, particularly in the United States, has raised questions concerning the reliability and effectiveness of the procedure. This aspect was important because the constitutional question cannot be resolved simply by replacing hanging with another method without first establishing whether the proposed alternative genuinely achieves the objective of reducing pain and preserving dignity.
The submissions before the Court therefore highlighted a complicated problem. While there may be concerns regarding the pain and suffering associated with hanging, alternative methods may also have their own medical, practical and ethical difficulties. Project 39A suggested that an expert committee could examine the available scientific evidence, study international practices and determine whether a better method exists. This approach would allow the Government to make a decision based on medical and scientific evidence rather than assumptions about which method is necessarily more humane. The Court's final observations appear to leave sufficient room for precisely such an evidence-based examination.
An additional dimension emerged during the hearing when Justice Sandeep Mehta referred to the psychological impact that executions may have on hangmen themselves. This observation broadened the discussion beyond the suffering of the condemned prisoner. It highlighted that the execution process may have consequences for the individuals required to carry it out as part of their official duties. The issue consequently involves not only the physical experience of the prisoner but also the broader human consequences associated with the administration of capital punishment.
The Supreme Court ultimately chose not to invalidate Section 354(5) CrPC. By dismissing the petition, the Court declined to hold that hanging is, by its very nature, unconstitutional. This means that the statutory provision prescribing hanging remains legally operative unless it is subsequently amended by Parliament or invalidated in future constitutional proceedings. However, the dismissal was accompanied by important qualifications. The Court specifically clarified that the judgment does not prevent the Union Government from undertaking a comprehensive review of the existing method of execution through an expert body.
The Court also made clear that its present decision does not permanently close the constitutional door on the issue. If compelling medical or scientific evidence becomes available in the future demonstrating that the existing method requires reconsideration, the question could again come before the constitutional courts. This qualification is significant because it recognises that constitutional evaluation of a method of execution may be informed by developments in medical science, technology and understanding of human suffering. Thus, the judgment does not necessarily settle the broader debate for all time; instead, it leaves the possibility of future review open on the basis of stronger evidence.
The judgment also places considerable responsibility on the Union Government. The Supreme Court has indicated that the Government remains free to examine whether an alternative method would better fulfil the constitutional objective of minimising pain and suffering while maintaining dignity. If an expert review is undertaken, it could potentially examine different methods, their medical consequences, reliability, practical feasibility, international experience and compatibility with Indian constitutional principles. Such an exercise could provide a more comprehensive foundation for any future legislative or policy decision concerning the method of execution.
The decision in Rishi Malhotra v. Union of India, W.P.(Crl.) No. 145/2017, therefore represents a nuanced position on the method of carrying out the death penalty. The Supreme Court has not abolished hanging, nor has it declared the method unconstitutional. At the same time, it has acknowledged that the question of whether a more humane and dignified method is available remains capable of examination. The judgment recognises the continuing importance of scientific evidence and constitutional values in determining how the State should implement a sentence as irreversible as capital punishment.
Ultimately, the ruling maintains the existing legal position while leaving the door open for reform. Hanging continues to be the statutory method under Section 354(5) CrPC, but the Union Government is not barred from investigating alternatives. The Supreme Court's emphasis on minimising pain and suffering, preserving dignity and considering medical and scientific evidence ensures that the debate over the execution of death sentences remains constitutionally relevant. The decision therefore does not end the discussion surrounding hanging; instead, it places the possibility of change within the framework of evidence-based governmental review and future constitutional scrutiny.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.