New Delhi, Oct 15 (UNI) The Supreme Court today expressed concern over the union Government’s resistance to evolving with time, after it opposed a suggestion that death row convicts be allowed to choose lethal injection as an alternative to execution by hanging.
A Bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking to abolish the practice of execution by hanging, terming it a method that causes “prolonged pain and suffering”.
The plea suggests replacing it with intravenous lethal injection, or alternatively, shooting, electrocution, or a gas chamber, as more humane methods.
During the hearing, the Bench noted that despite advances in science and global practices, the union remains firm on continuing the traditional method of hanging. Justice Mehta observed,
“The problem is, the government is not ready to evolve… It’s a very old procedure. Things have changed over a period of time.”
The suggestion before the Court was that at least an option be given to condemned prisoners to choose between hanging and lethal injection.
However, Senior Advocate Sonia Mathur, appearing for the Union, referred to the government’s counter affidavit, which stated that granting such an option may not be “feasible” and that the matter involved a policy decision.
Following this, the Court adjourned the hearing to November 11.
The petitioner, Advocate Rishi Malhotra, argued that 49 out of 50 U.S. states have adopted lethal injection as a mode of execution, calling it “quick, humane, and decent,” as opposed to hanging, which he described as “cruel, barbaric, and lingering.”
He submitted, “At least give an option to the condemned prisoner, lethal injection is quick and dignified, whereas in hanging, the body lingers on the rope for up to 40 minutes.”
Malhotra also pointed out that armed forces personnel are already given an option in execution methods, highlighting the inconsistency.
In March 2023, the Supreme Court considered forming an expert committee and sought data from the Attorney General on the pain, duration, and physiological impact of hanging.
In May, Attorney General R. Venkataramani informed the Court that he had recommended setting up such a committee to explore humane alternatives and that the government was finalising its composition.
The PIL challenges Section 354(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which mandates that a person sentenced to death shall be “hanged by the neck till dead.”
The petitioner contends that the provision is discriminatory and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, including the right to die with dignity.
The petition further invokes United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) resolutions, which state that capital punishment should be carried out in a manner causing the least possible suffering.
The Supreme Court will next hear the matter on November 11, when it is expected to consider whether India’s mode of execution should evolve to reflect contemporary standards of humanity and dignity.
