The Supreme Court has observed that botched executions in the United States demonstrate that lethal injection holds no clear advantage over hanging as a mode of executing a death sentence. 

The Bench dismissed the argument that lethal injection is a more humane alternative, observing that there is no credible material available showing botched hanging executions in India under the existing legal framework.

The Court has dismissed the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) which challenged the constitutional validity of execution by hanging under Section 354(5) CrPC and sought less painful alternatives. The Court held that a sufficient case was not made out to reconsider Deena v. Union of India (1983).

The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta held, "We also find merit in the submission advanced by learned Attorney General that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate, by any credible material, even a single instance of a botched execution in India under the existing statutory framework. On the contrary, the material placed on record by the impleader itself demonstrates that in the United States of America, where lethal injection has been adopted in several States as a mode of execution of death sentence, there have been numerous botched executions. The available material, therefore, does not establish that lethal injection has any added advantage over hanging as a mode of execution of a death sentence. Hence, the argument advanced by the petitioner that lethal injection is a better and more humane mode of execution of the death sentence is totally unconvincing."


Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora and Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra appeared on behalf of the Petitioner, while Attorney General R. Venkataramani appeared for the Union

A writ petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenging the constitutional validity of Section 354(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(Corresponding to Section 393(5) of the Bhartiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 20232) insofar as it prescribes hanging as the sole method of execution.

In Deena, the Court ruled that execution by hanging under Section 354(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) is constitutional.

However, the Court clarified that its ruling does not preclude future constitutional scrutiny if compelling scientific, medical, or empirical evidence emerges, nor does it prevent the Union Government from setting up an expert body to explore alternative execution methods that minimize pain while preserving human dignity.

Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner

The Petitioner contended that while the constitutionality of hanging as a mode of execution was considered by a three- judge Bench of the Court in Deena (supra), the determination in that case proceeded on a limited evidentiary basis, as no detailed medical or scientific material examining whether execution by hanging is in fact instantaneous and free from pain was placed before the Court.

She further asserted that a comprehensive review of scientific and medical literature on judicial hanging, including post- exhumation studies, historical analyses, and anecdotal narratives from officials who had witnessed executions, establishes that the method is neither instantaneous nor pain-free. 

It was urged that execution by hanging under Section 354(5) of the CrPC/Section 393(5) of the BNSS violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India on three distinct grounds:-

1. Hanging is not quick, as death by hanging is not instantaneous, and the scientific literature establishes that it frequently is not.

2. The procedures in preparation for hanging, including the weighing and measuring of the condemned person, the calculation of the drop, and the entire procedure leading up to the moment of execution, inflict tremendous psychological suffering and humiliation on the condemned, amounting to degrading treatment.

3. The outcomes of hanging are unpredictable and uncontrolled, dependent upon variables that cannot be reliably managed, rendering the provision and the procedure prescribed thereunder manifestly arbitrary.

Submissions on behalf of the Union

The Union submitted that the reliefs sought, being in substance a direction to strike down or judicially substitute a legislatively prescribed mode of execution, amount to an invitation to the Court to redesign the penal framework, which is a function exclusively within the domain of Parliament.

It was submitted that no writ can be issued directing Parliament to enact a particular law or adopt a particular legislative policy, and that the separation of powers under the constitutional scheme bars such relief. 

It was contended that the plea of violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India was unfounded. With respect to Article 21, it was submitted that the procedure established by law for carrying out the sentence of death is firmly established; it takes effect only after trial, sentencing, confirmation by the constitutional Courts, i.e., the High Court and Supreme Court, in the process of appeal, review, curative petition, and the mercy petition to be considered by the President of India.

The AG submitted that the question of justness and fairness of a method of execution can arise only where a meaningful comparison between alternative methods is free from doubt and uncertainty.

Observations of the Court

At the outset, the Court was not persuaded that a case has been made out for referring the decision of the three-judge bench in Deena to a larger bench for reconsideration of the constitutional validity of Section 354(5) of the CrPC/393(5) of the BNSS.

With reference to the other alternative mode of execution of the death sentence provided under the military statutes viz. Army Act, 1950, Air Force Act, 1950, Navy Act, 1957, wherein, death by shooting is recognized as an alternate mode of execution, the Court held that the said argument to be irrelevant and unconvincing because the statutes in which shooting is provided as a mode of execution operate in a distinct field and govern a separate class of persons subject to military law.

"These instances cannot be relied upon to test the constitutional validity of the provisions governing the execution of a sentence of death imposed upon civilians under the ordinary criminal law", the Court held.

The Court observed that in Deena, the Court, after examining electrocution, lethal gas, shooting and lethal injection as modes of execution, concluded that none of these methods possessed any distinct or demonstrable advantage over hanging.

The Court held, "Taking a holistic view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the petitioner has failed to place any material before this Court which would justify doubting the correctness of view taken in Deena (supra) or to demonstrate that the aforesaid view has lost its efficacy or stands diluted by subsequent constitutional, scientific or empirical developments. Consequently, we do not find any compelling reason which would persuade this Court to refer the correctness of three-Judges Bench decision in Deena (supra) to a larger Bench."

Regarding the reliance by the Petitioner that the Law Commission in its 187th report submitted in the year 2003, has observed that execution by hanging is accompanied by intense torture and pain, the Court noted that the observations made in the Law Commission Report were recommendatory in nature.

The Court observed, "It may reasonably be presumed that the legislators and the policy makers must have considered the 187th report of the Law Commission in its entirety and have thought fit not to amend the mode of execution of death sentence in the newly drafted BNSS which replaces the CrPC."

Finding that there was no need to refer the matter to a larger bench, the Court dismissed the writ petition.

Cause Title: Rishi Malhotra v. Union of India [Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 873]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora, Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra, Advocate on Record Prem Malhotra, Advocate on Record Prerna Priyadarshini, Advocate Ansuiya, Advocate Shivaansh Maini, Advocate Shreya Rastogi, Advocate Moulika Diwakar, Advocate Kush Chaturvedi, Advocate Syed Faraz Alam, Advocate Ayesha Choudhary, Advocate Pramothesh Mukherjee, Advocate Sonali Kumari and Advocate Ishita Singh Tomar

Respondents: Attorney General for India R. Venkataramani, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Senior Advocate Sonia Mathur, Advocate on Record Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate Shradha Deshmukh, Advocate Kanu Agarwal, Advocate Mayank Pandey, Advocate Chitvan Singhal, Advocate Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Advocate Ameyavikrama Thanvi, Advocate Raman Yadav

Click here to read/download the Judgment

Tags: