Will India Replace Death by Hanging With Lethal Injection and Other Methods? Know What the Supreme Court Said
The Supreme Court has upheld death by hanging, rejecting a plea to replace it with 'less painful' methods like lethal injection. The bench declined to refer the matter to a larger panel but noted that the government remains free to form an expert committee to review alternative execution methods should new scientific evidence emerge.
The Supreme Court has dismissed a long-standing petition seeking to replace death by hanging with less painful execution methods such as intravenous lethal injection, affirming that hanging remains the legally valid mode of capital punishment in India for now. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta delivered the verdict, declining a request to refer three earlier judgments on the issue to a larger bench. The court noted that there was no sufficient legal basis to reconsider the established constitutionality of execution by hanging under Section 354(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 393(5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).
Arguments Raised by the Petitioner
The public interest litigation, originally filed in 2017 by senior advocate Rishi Malhotra, argued that execution by hanging is extremely painful, inhuman, and cruel, reports NDTV. Can Social Media Platforms Face POCSO Prosecution Over Child S*x Abuse Content? Supreme Court Agrees To Examine Plea.
The petition contended that the right to a dignified death should be recognised as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. It suggested alternative methods such as intravenous lethal injection, shooting, electrocution, or gas chambers, citing that hanging can take extended periods while alternatives cause death within minutes. The plea also referenced a United Nations resolution stating that capital punishment should be carried out with the least possible suffering.
Court's Stance and Future Review
While upholding the current practice, the Supreme Court emphasised that its judgment is not the final word on the matter should scientific understanding evolve. "Before parting, we clarify that the dismissal of the present writ petition must not be understood as foreclosing future constitutional scrutiny should compelling scientific, medical, or empirical evidence emerge demonstrating that the factual and scientific basis on which the decision in Dina proceeded has been materially displaced by subsequent developments," the bench stated. The court added that the Central Government remains free to constitute a committee of experts to conduct a comprehensive review of alternative methods for carrying out the death penalty. ‘Are You Bowing to Corporate Pressure?’: Supreme Court Questions FSSAI on Food Warning Labels.
Government Position and Background
During earlier proceedings, Attorney General R Venkataramani, appearing for the Central Government, informed the court that the government had previously deliberated on forming a committee to examine the issue. While suggestions were made during hearings to give convicts a choice between hanging and lethal injection, the Centre maintained in its affidavit that offering such options was not practically feasible. The Supreme Court had previously expressed dissatisfaction with the administration's reluctance to evolve its stance, though the bench ultimately concluded that mandating legislative changes to sentencing procedures fell outside the direct purview of a judicial directive.
(The above story first appeared on LatestLY on Aug 18, 2026 01:15 PM IST. For more news and updates on politics, world, sports, entertainment and lifestyle, log on to our website latestly.com).