Looking for alternatives to hanging: Centre to SC

THe unification regime informed the sublime margaret court on tues that it is examining whether a less painful and more humane method of execution could replace hanging, though no final decision has been taken so far.Attorney General R Venkataramani told a bench of justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta that deliberations were underway, and the Centre would require more time before it could present a concrete position.“I am alive to the issue. Some proceedings have taken place...But no decision has been taken so far,” said the attorney general, responding to a plea seeking that death row convicts be allowed to choose between hanging and lethal injection. “There is no urgency. No hanging is taking place right now,” added Venkataramani, requesting a deferment.Accepting the request, the bench adjourned the matter to January 21, 2026, noting that a detailed hearing will be taken up on that date. Senior advocate Rishi Malhotra, who has challenged the constitutionality of execution by hanging, urged that the government update the court on the progress made by the committee.“Let the AG apprise this court of the proceedings before the committee,” submitted Malhotra. The bench then noted: “We will put it for a detailed hearing on January 21, 2026.”Malhotra’s petition challenges Section 354(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, now reflected in Section 393(5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which mandates that execution of a death sentence must be carried out by hanging. He has argued that the method is archaic, causes prolonged suffering, and violates the right to life with dignity under Article 21. More than 40 countries, he pointed out earlier, have adopted lethal injection or other modes considered less torturous.On October 15, the same bench observed that methods of execution globally have evolved considerably since death by hanging was formalised in India under colonial rule and suggested that the Centre consider whether a condemned prisoner may be permitted to choose the mode of execution. “It is an old procedure. Several things have changed in the meantime world over. Consider what Mr. Malhotra’s suggestions are,” the bench had then told the Centre.In its earlier affidavit before the court in May 2023, the Union government maintained that hanging remained the “safest and quickest” method of execution, arguing that it eliminates the possibility of a lingering death. The affidavit rejected lethal injection as a viable alternative, citing data from the United States to point out that chemical executions have the highest rate of botched outcomes, and that trained medical professionals were unlikely to participate in such procedures.The Centre further emphasised in the affidavit that the death penalty is imposed only in the “rarest of rare” cases, involving acts of exceptional depravity or brutality, and cautioned that making the process “overtly comfortable, serene and painless” could dilute its deterrent effect.Nonetheless, the government told the court then that it was open to reviewing the existing system and was in the process of appointing a committee to study alternative methods of execution. The bench had then noted that it was inclined to examine whether hanging, as the prescribed method, was consistent with the constitutional guarantee of dignity in death, and whether scientific evidence supported a less painful mode of execution.The court’s scrutiny builds on its March 2023 observation that the 1983 judgment in Deena @ Deena Dayal vs Union of India, which upheld hanging as a constitutionally valid method, did not consider the test of proportionality, nor did it compare empirical data on pain and suffering caused by different methods.Malhotra’s 2017 petition has argued that execution by hanging amounts to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, violating the right to life with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. Relying on international practices and the 187th report of the Law Commission, which had also recommended replacing hanging, Malhotra contended that the state’s power to deprive life must be exercised in a manner that inflicts the least possible pain.The petition called upon the court to direct the government to adopt a modern, humane mode of execution, such as lethal injection, intravenous anaesthesia, or firing squad, or at the very least, to give the condemned prisoner the right to choose the mode of death.