SUPREME COURT TO DECIDE ON PLEA QUESTIONING HANGING AS SOLE EXECUTION METHOD:

The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its judgment in a public interest litigation challenging the continued practice of execution of death sentences by hanging. The petition seeks the abolition of hanging as the sole mode of execution and urges the Court to consider alternative methods that are claimed to be more humane and less painful.

The matter was heard by a Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta. After hearing detailed submissions from Attorney General R. Venkataramani, Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora appearing for Project 39A, and the petitioner-in-person, Advocate Rishi Malhotra, the Bench reserved its orders. The Court directed the parties to file brief written notes and supporting submissions within a period of three weeks.

During the hearing, the petitioner relied upon a report of the Law Commission of India, which contains a comparative analysis of various methods of execution and examines the degree of pain, suffering, and time involved in each. The Court asked the petitioner to place a concise note on record summarising the relevant findings of the report along with applicable judicial precedents.

Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora, representing Project 39A, informed the Court that extensive submissions had already been filed evaluating the feasibility of lethal injection as an alternative to hanging. She drew attention to the experience of other jurisdictions, particularly the United States, where lethal injection has been widely used. According to her submissions, the data from those jurisdictions indicated that lethal injection had not always resulted in painless or dignified executions, with several instances of failed or prolonged executions due to variations in drug composition and administration.

In response to a query from the Bench regarding viable alternatives, Arora suggested that the issue would be best examined by an expert committee tasked with gathering scientific evidence and assessing comparative international practices. At the same time, she acknowledged that execution by hanging does involve a degree of physical suffering, as death is not always instantaneous. The Bench also noted the psychological and emotional impact that the process of hanging may have on prison officials and executioners involved in carrying out the sentence.

The Attorney General informed the Court that the Union Government was examining the issue at the highest level and that multiple committees had already been constituted to deliberate on the question of alternative modes of execution. He added that the Union would place its findings before the Court as and when they became available. At the request of the Attorney General, the Bench clarified that if the need arose, the Union would be at liberty to seek further directions from the Court at a later stage.

The petition challenges the constitutional validity of Section 354(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which mandates that a person sentenced to death shall be executed by hanging. It contends that the provision is discriminatory, violates the right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution, and runs contrary to the principles laid down by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab. The petitioner also seeks a declaration that the right to a dignified procedure of death forms an intrinsic part of the fundamental right to life.

According to the petition, hanging often involves a prolonged execution process, sometimes extending to over forty minutes before death is formally declared. In contrast, methods such as shooting or intravenous lethal injection are stated to result in death within a significantly shorter duration. The petition further relies on resolutions adopted by the United Nations Economic and Social Council, which require that where capital punishment is retained, it should be carried out in a manner that inflicts the minimum possible suffering.

The issue has been under the Court’s consideration since March 2023, when the Bench had first explored the possibility of constituting an expert committee and sought data from the Union on the physical and psychological impact of hanging. In May 2023, the Attorney General had informed the Court that the government was in the process of identifying members for such a committee. With the orders now reserved, the Court is expected to examine whether the existing statutory framework governing capital punishment execution meets constitutional standards of dignity, fairness, and humanity.