Supreme Court Questions Colonial-Era Execution Method: Hanging vs. Lethal Injection Debate

The Supreme Court of India has reignited the debate around capital punishment methods, questioning whether the colonial-era practice of death by hanging should continue to be India’s sole means of execution.

On October 9, 2025, a bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta suggested that the Union Government should consider giving death row convicts the option to choose between hanging and lethal injection, observing that “methods of execution across the world have undergone significant change” since India codified hanging into law.

---

The Case and the Challenge

The issue arises from a petition filed by advocate Rishi Malhotra, challenging the constitutional validity of Section 354(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which mandated that a person sentenced to death “shall be hanged by the neck till he is dead.”

This provision has now been replaced by Section 393(5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, but the method of hanging continues unchanged.

Malhotra’s argument is that the death penalty, if retained, must be executed humanely. He urged the court to consider lethal injection as an alternative — a method adopted by over 40 countries — describing it as “a more dignified and less painful way to die.”

---

Centre’s Response and Pending Committee Review

Appearing for the government, Senior Advocate Sonia Mathur referred to the Centre’s affidavit (May 2023), which stated that the government was in the process of constituting an expert committee to examine whether a more humane method of execution could replace hanging.

The Centre, however, defended the current practice, calling hanging the “safest and quickest” mode, with minimal risk of technical failure. It argued that lethal injections have resulted in botched executions in countries like the United States and that medical professionals are often unwilling to participate in such procedures due to ethical constraints.

The government also emphasized that the death penalty is imposed only in “the rarest of rare cases”, involving acts of exceptional brutality, and that making the process “comfortable or serene” could dilute its deterrent impact.

The Supreme Court deferred the next hearing to November 11, directing the government to update the court on the status of the expert committee and its findings.

---

Constitutional Dimensions: Article 21 and the Right to Dignity

The core of Malhotra’s petition lies in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty and extends to the right to die with dignity.

Malhotra argued that execution by hanging constitutes “cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment”, violating the constitutional standard of dignity. His plea cites the 187th Report of the Law Commission of India (2003), which also recommended replacing hanging with lethal injection, considering the latter to be more humane and medically controlled.

This constitutional question builds on the 1983 judgment in Deena @ Deena Dayal v. Union of India, where the Supreme Court upheld hanging as constitutional. However, the current bench observed that the earlier ruling did not apply the modern test of proportionality or consider scientific data comparing pain and suffering under different execution methods.

---

Global Context and Evolving Human Rights Standards

Globally, the method of execution has evolved in favor of less physically violent and more medically controlled means.

• The United States and several other nations now use lethal injection, involving a sequence of chemicals that induce unconsciousness, paralysis, and cardiac arrest.

• Countries like Japan and Singapore still retain hanging, while China has moved toward firing squads and lethal injections.

• The European Union, through its Charter of Fundamental Rights, has abolished the death penalty entirely, viewing it as incompatible with human dignity.

In this global context, the Indian judiciary’s question — whether the state should allow a convict to choose a more dignified death — reflects a progressive interpretation of Article 21 in light of evolving human rights jurisprudence.

---

Legal Provisions and Statutory Basis

1. Article 21 of the Constitution – Ensures protection of life and personal liberty, implying humane treatment even during execution.

2. Article 14 – Guarantees equality before the law, which can extend to ensuring uniformity and fairness in how the death penalty is executed.

3. Section 393(5) of BNSS, 2023 – Retains the method of hanging for execution.

4. Law Commission’s 187th Report – Recommended that lethal injection replace hanging, calling it less painful and more scientific.

5. Deena Dayal Case (1983) – Upheld hanging as constitutional, but without comparing alternative methods.

---

Revisiting the “Rarest of Rare” Doctrine

India’s retention of the death penalty is based on the “rarest of rare” doctrine, established in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980). The court held that capital punishment should be imposed only when life imprisonment is “unquestionably foreclosed.”

However, once death is awarded, the manner of execution must comply with Article 21’s guarantee of dignity, making this debate less about punishment and more about humanity in punishment.

---

Conclusion: Towards Humane Justice

The Supreme Court’s question — Can a condemned prisoner choose how they die? — reflects a profound constitutional and ethical dilemma.

While India has not abolished the death penalty, the judiciary is ensuring that punishment does not become cruelty. As the world moves toward more humane systems of justice, India’s review of its execution protocols could mark the beginning of a modern, rights-based reform.

Whether the final verdict retains hanging or introduces an alternative, one thing is clear — the Supreme Court is steering the debate from vengeance to dignity.

---