18 August 2026 Legal Updates

Supreme Court Dismisses Plea To Abolish Hanging As Method To Execute Death Penalty, Says Union Free To Explore Alternatives

Case Details

• Case Title: Rishi Malhotra v. Union of India
• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Judge(s): Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
• Citation: W.P.(Crl.) No. 145/2017
• Date of Judgment: August 18, 2026
• Statutory Provision Involved: Section 354(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

Facts of the Case

• The Petition: A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed by Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra challenging the method of executing the death penalty in India.
• The Challenge: The petitioner argued that Section 354(5) of the CrPC, which mandates that a convict be "hanged by the neck till he is dead," is barbaric and cruel.
• The Comparison: The petitioner provided data showing that hanging is a "lingering" death that can take up to 40 minutes to confirm. In contrast, alternative methods like intravenous lethal injection take approximately 5 minutes, and shooting takes only a matter of seconds.
• The Global/Military Context: It was highlighted that 49 out of 50 states in the USA use lethal injection. Furthermore, it was noted that under Indian military law, personnel in the armed forces are sometimes given a choice regarding the mode of execution, which makes the rigid rule for civilians "discriminatory."

The Central Legal Issue

• Constitutional Validity: Does Section 354(5) of the CrPC violate Article 21 of the Constitution (Right to Life and Dignity)?
• The Right to Die with Dignity: Is a prisoner entitled to a method of execution that ensures the "minimum possible suffering" as a fundamental right?

Analysis and Reasoning

The Supreme Court evaluated the petition through the lens of constitutional objective and scientific feasibility:

• The Standard of Proof: The Court held that for a settled law (like Section 354(5)) to be declared unconstitutional, there must be "compelling medical or scientific evidence." At this stage, the Court felt the evidence provided was not sufficient to totally discard hanging as a method.
• The Failure of Alternatives: The Court took note of submissions from Project 39A, which pointed out that lethal injections have often "failed" or resulted in botched executions in the United States, causing even more pain than hanging. This made the "decency" of lethal injection a disputed fact.
• International Obligations: The Court acknowledged the UN (ECOSOC) resolutions which state that capital punishment must inflict "minimum possible suffering." However, it reasoned that determining which method is truly the "most humane" is a technical task for an Expert Committee, not a purely judicial one.
• Judicial Restraint: The Court noted that the Union Government is already examining the matter at the "highest level" and has been considering the formation of an expert body. The Court decided not to overstep its role by dictating a specific method.

Final Verdict

• Petition Dismissed: The Court refused to strike down Section 354(5) of the CrPC.
• The "Open Door" Clause: The Court made a significant clarification: the dismissal is not final. If better science or medical data emerges in the future, the issues can be revisited.
• Executive Liberty: The judgment explicitly allows the Union Government to continue its own review and replace hanging if an expert body finds a better alternative that ensures dignity.

Legal Principles Established

• Principle 1: Article 21 and the Death Row. Even a person sentenced to death does not lose their Right to Dignity. The State is constitutionally obligated to minimize pain during execution.
• Principle 2: The Evolving Standards of Decency. What was considered "normal" in 1898 (when CrPC was first drafted) may be considered "cruel" today. However, change must be backed by scientific consensus.
• Principle 3: Doctrine of Separation of Powers. Choosing a method of execution is a policy decision for the Legislature and Executive, assisted by experts, rather than a decision for judges to make based on PILs alone.

Statutory/Legal Terms Explained

• Section 354(5) CrPC: The specific line in Indian law that dictates "Hanging" as the only method of execution.
• Article 21: The Fundamental Right to Life and Personal Liberty. The SC has interpreted this to include the "Right to die with dignity."
• Ultra Vires: A Latin term meaning "beyond the powers." If a law is ultra vires, it is unconstitutional.
• Gian Kaur's Case: A landmark 1996 judgment where the SC held that the "Right to Life" does not include a "Right to Die," but it does include a right to a dignified death.
• ECOSOC: The United Nations Economic and Social Council, which sets international standards for human rights.