Supreme Court dismisses plea against execution by hanging, leaves scope for review

The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a petition seeking the abolition of execution by hanging, stating that the current practice does not warrant judicial intervention. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, however, clarified that its verdict would not prevent the Union government from conducting a comprehensive review of the existing method of execution through an expert body.

The bench observed that such a review could examine whether an alternative method better serves the constitutional objective of minimising unnecessary pain while preserving the dignity of the condemned prisoner. The court's remarks came while disposing of a plea filed in 2017 by senior advocate Rishi Malhotra, which had sought the removal of hanging as a mode of execution from the statute.

The petition had proposed alternative methods such as intravenous lethal injection, shooting, electrocution, or the gas chamber, arguing that these were less painful. During the course of the arguments, Malhotra also submitted that a condemned prisoner should at least be given a choice between hanging and lethal injection.

The Supreme Court, however, made it clear that it cannot direct the legislature to adopt a particular mode of sentencing. The judiciary, it noted, has a limited role in such matters of legislative policy. At the same time, the court acknowledged the need to examine the humanity and constitutionality of the execution process.

In March 2023, the top court had indicated that it might consider setting up a committee of experts to examine whether hanging was proportionate and less painful as a mode of execution. It had sought "better data" from the Centre regarding the procedure. The latest verdict appears to have closed the judicial proceedings on this petition while leaving the policy window open.

The Union government, in an affidavit filed in 2018, had strongly supported the existing legal provision that a death row convict would be hanged to death. The Ministry of Home Affairs had argued that other methods, such as lethal injections or firing, were not necessarily less painful. The affidavit described death by hanging as "quick, simple" and free from anything that would "unnecessarily sharpen the poignancy of the prisoner."

The plea had also cited the 187th Report of the Law Commission, which advocated the removal of hanging from the statute. The Law Commission has long recommended reforms in the execution process, emphasising the need for a humane and dignified approach. While the report has not been accepted by the government, it has served as a reference point for legal debates.

The verdict has been welcomed by some legal experts as a pragmatic acknowledgment of judicial limits, while others express disappointment that the court did not engage more deeply with the constitutional arguments against hanging. The matter now rests with the executive, which has the authority to consider reforms.

This case highlights the ongoing tension between the death penalty as a legal sanction and the methods used to carry it out. The Supreme Court's decision reaffirms that the judiciary will not substitute its own preference for the legislature's choice, but it also signals that the debate over execution methods is far from over. Whether the Centre chooses to act on the suggestion of an expert review remains to be seen.