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.