Guwahati: The Supreme Court has declined to replace hanging as the prescribed method for carrying out death sentences in India, while allowing the issue to be reconsidered if future scientific or medical evidence points to a less painful alternative.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta rejected a plea seeking a change in the existing execution procedure, finding that there was insufficient ground to reopen the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling that upheld hanging.
The petition, filed by senior advocate Rishi Malhotra, challenged the use of hanging under Section 354(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It argued that the method could subject condemned prisoners to prolonged suffering and raised questions about their constitutional right to dignity under Article 21.
Alternative methods suggested during the proceedings included lethal injection, shooting and electrocution. The court had previously sought information on the physical effects of hanging, including the level of pain involved and the time required for death.
The Supreme Court, however, stopped short of permanently closing the matter. It said a future challenge could be considered if credible scientific, medical or other evidence demonstrates that circumstances underlying the earlier ruling have materially changed.
The court also indicated that the Union government could establish an expert committee to assess existing and alternative execution methods. Such a panel could draw on specialists from areas including law, forensic medicine, neuroscience and criminology.
The proposed review would examine whether another method could reduce unnecessary suffering while preserving the dignity of prisoners sentenced to death.
During the proceedings, Project 39A raised concerns over lethal injection, noting that its use in other countries, including the United States, has also been accompanied by difficulties and failed executions.
For now, the Supreme Court’s decision means hanging remains the legally prescribed method for executing death sentences in India. However, the possibility of judicial scrutiny remains open if new evidence emerges on the pain, medical consequences, or humanity of the procedure.