SYLLABUS
GS-2: Indian Constitution—Historical Underpinnings, Evolution, Features, Amendments, Significant Provisions and Basic Structure; Functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary.
Context: The Supreme Court has upheld hanging as a constitutionally permissible method of executing a death sentence, dismissing a challenge that sought its replacement with an alternative method.
Key Highlights of the Judgment
• The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of hanging and dismissed the PIL challenging it. It declined to revisit the position established in Deena v. Union of India (1983).
• The Court found that the scientific material placed before it did not establish that an alternative method was demonstrably more humane than hanging.
• The Court did not treat the issue as permanently closed. Future scientific, medical or empirical evidence that fundamentally alters the assumptions underlying the Deena case could provide grounds for reconsideration.
• The Union Government remains free to examine alternative methods of execution, preserving scope for future policy or legislative consideration.
Why Was Hanging Challenged?
• Article 21 and dignity: The petitioners argued that the constitutional protection of life and dignity extends to the manner in which a death sentence is executed, and that hanging may involve cruel or excessive suffering.
• Scientific uncertainty: They questioned whether the long-drop method reliably produces immediate unconsciousness through cervical fracture. A too-short drop could cause strangulation, while an excessive drop could cause decapitation.
• Empirical evidence: The petitioners relied on a 1992 study of the skeletal remains of 34 people hanged in England between 1882 and 1945. A “hangman’s fracture” occurred in only three cases, while six deaths were attributed to asphyxiation.
• Alternative methods: They argued that methods such as lethal injection could provide a more humane alternative to hanging.
Why Did the Court Uphold Hanging?
• Established precedent: The Court found no reason to depart from Deena v. Union of India, which had upheld hanging as a constitutionally permissible method.
• Inconclusive evidence: The petitioners’ scientific material did not sufficiently undermine the reasoning underlying Deena.
• Union’s argument: The Union noted that India had recorded only eight executions since 2003, with no recorded botched execution, while lethal injection has faced documented failures in the US.
• No proven superior alternative: The Court found that lethal injection, electrocution, lethal gas and shooting had not been shown to offer an advantage over hanging.
Legal Position and Alternatives to Hanging
• Judicial Position: Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) upheld capital punishment subject to the “rarest of rare” doctrine, while Deena v. Union of India (1983) upheld hanging as a valid mode of execution.
• Statutory Provision: Section 393(5) of the BNSS prescribes hanging by the neck till death for a death sentence. The provision traces its legislative lineage to the 1861 CrPC.
• Law Commission: The 187th Report (2003) recommended lethal injection as an alternative mode of execution and also examined shooting under military laws. Parliament subsequently retained hanging in the BNSS.
• Global practices: Retentionist countries use varied methods, including hanging, lethal injection, shooting, beheading and nitrogen hypoxia. However, more than two-thirds of countries have abolished the death penalty in law or practice.
- Shooting is used in China, North Korea, Somalia and parts of West Asia. Saudi Arabia uses Beheading by sword. Nitrogen hypoxia, a relatively recent method, used in the United States.
Significance of the Verdict
• Legal clarity: The judgment confirms that hanging remains constitutionally permissible under India’s existing framework.
• Evidence-based review: It establishes that replacing the existing method would require strong scientific, medical or empirical evidence.
• Scope for future change: The Court has left the issue open to reconsideration if new evidence fundamentally changes the existing scientific understanding.
• Policy space: The Union Government remains free to explore alternative methods, keeping the question open for future legislative or policy consideration.