The story so far: On August 18, the Supreme Court upheld hanging as the method of executing a death sentence, dismissing a PIL petition challenging its constitutional validity. The Court held that its earlier decision upholding hanging continues to bind it and found no conclusive scientific evidence to establish that alternatives such as lethal injection are more humane. The matter was before the Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta.
Why was hanging challenged?
The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of Section 354(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 393(5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, insofar it prescribes hanging as the sole method of executing a death sentence. The petition is from 2017.
The central question before the Supreme Court was whether prescribing a single method of execution, hanging, conforms to the constitutional requirement of a procedure that is just, fair and reasonable.
Hanging by the neck was first prescribed as the method of executing a death sentence under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The long-drop method was intended to cause a fracture of the cervical vertebrae, resulting in an immediate loss of consciousness and death. The method was premised on a clinical calculation of the height and weight of the condemned.
The issue of whether hanging is a humane method of execution has been examined by various institutions. The Law Commission of India, in its 35th Report in 1967, examined different modes of execution and acknowledged the view that hanging should be replaced by a more humane and painless method. It said that the method of execution should be “certain, humane, quick and decent”. However, it did not recommend an immediate change, holding that the issue should await further advances in science and technology.
The Law Commission revisited the issue in its 187th Report in 2003. It noted that hanging is accompanied by physical suffering, pain and mental agony, and referred to international safeguards requiring the State to inflict the minimum possible suffering while carrying out a lawful death sentence.
The petitioner also relied on the constitutional guarantee of dignity under Article 21. In Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996), a Constitution Bench had held that the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity until the end of natural life. The argument was that this protection does not disappear when a person is sentenced to death and that even a prisoner on death row is entitled to dignity until execution.
What is the concept of stare decisis?
Stare decisis is a term derived fromLatin which means “to stand by things decided.” It is a legal principle that directs courts to adhere to previous judgments, or judgments of higher courts or tribunals, as it has persuasive and binding authority while resolving a case with allegedly comparable facts.
This petition faced an important legal hurdle: the constitutional validity of hanging had already been decided by a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court. A Bench of a lesser strength ordinarily cannot depart from the decision of a larger Bench unless there are compelling reasons to do so. The Court has said that this could include a significant constitutional development, legislative amendment, or cogent scientific and empirical evidence showing that the earlier decision had become untenable.
In Deena v. Union of India (1983), a three-Judge Bench examined the constitutional validity of Section 354(5) of the CrPC and upheld hanging as a mode of execution. The Court held that when properly administered, hanging was a quick, simple, and decent method of execution without unnecessary mutilation. The judgment had remained the governing precedent for more than four decades.
The position was further strengthened because Deena casehad subsequently been considered and approved by a Constitution Bench (at least five judges) in Shashi Nayar v. Union of India (1992).
Therefore, the two-Judge Bench had a very limited scope to reconsider whether hanging itself was constitutional.
What is the Supreme Court’s stance?
The Supreme Court held that the earlier decision in Deena casecontinued to bind it.
The petitioner argued that lethal injection was a more scientific, humane and painless method of execution. However, the Court found that this claim was not supported by unimpeachable scientific or empirical evidence.
The Court noted that Deena case had itself considered alternative methods of execution, including electrocution, lethal gas, shooting and lethal injection. It had concluded that none of these methods demonstrated any distinct or demonstrable advantage over hanging.
Consequently, the Court found no sufficient basis to conclude that the legal position settled in Deena case had become unconstitutional or otherwise untenable.
Why did the Supreme Court uphold death by hanging?
The Court did not hold that hanging is conclusively the most humane method of executing a death sentence. Rather, it held that there was insufficient basis for this two-Judge Bench to overturn a precedent that had been settled by a larger Bench and subsequently approved by a Constitution Bench.
Deena had upheld hanging more than four decades ago. The petitioner was also unable to place before the Court conclusive scientific or empirical evidence establishing that an alternative method, particularly lethal injection, was demonstrably more humane or painless.
In the absence of such developments or evidence, the principle of stare decisis prevented the Bench from taking a different view. The Court, therefore, dismissed the challenge to hanging as the prescribed method of execution.
However, it clarified that the dismissal does not foreclose future constitutional scrutiny of the method of execution.
Published – August 21, 2026 06:11 pm IST
