Journalism of Courage
Supreme Court bins plea to replace death by hanging with lethal injection
The Supreme Court, however, said the Centre can undertake a comprehensive review of the existing method of carrying out the death penalty if necessary.
The Supreme Court refused to refer a 1983 decision that upheld the constitutionality of execution by hanging to a larger bench. (AI generated image)
Should the lethal injection replace hanging as a “less painful” mode for carrying out the death penalty? The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a petition challenging the constitutional validity of death by hanging, but left the question open for future scrutiny.
The court refused to refer to a larger bench a 1983 three-judge bench decision that upheld the constitutionality of execution by hanging.
“We are not persuaded that a case has been made out for referring the decision of the three-judge bench to a larger bench for reconsideration of the constitutional validity of Sections 354 of the CrPC/ 393(5) of the BNSS (provisions dealing with death penalty by hanging),” a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta said.
The petitioner, advocate Rishi Malhotra, argued that death by hanging is barbaric, inhuman, and cruel, and against international resolutions. Death by intravenous lethal injection, however, takes not more than 5 minutes, compared to death by hanging, which takes not less than 40 minutes, he said.
The bench clarified that its decision should not be seen as shutting down any future constitutional scrutiny on this question, should any compelling scientific, medical, or empirical evidence emerge demonstrating that the factual and scientific basis for the 1983 order had been overtaken by newer developments.
“Nothing contained in this judgment shall preclude the Union government should it consider it appropriate from undertaking a comprehensive review of the existing method of execution through an expert body comprising specialists in law, forensic medicine, neuroscience, criminology, and allied disciplines with a view to examine whether any alternative method of execution better serves the constitutional objective of minimising unnecessary pain while preserving the dignity of the condemned prisoners,” it added.
The bench underlined that constitutional interpretation is “organic and must remain responsive”, both to the evolution of constitutional doctrine and to the advances in scientific knowledge.
© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
Advertisement
Loading Recommendations...
Advertisement
Live Blog
Advertisement