Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, Supreme Court

The Supreme 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).

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.

In January 2026, the Court had reserved judgment in the plea. In 2023, the Court had also allowed an application seeking intervention by the National Law University, Delhi's Project 39A.

The Court had previously remarked that the Government is not ready to evolve over a period of time, as the procedure of hanging is a very old procedure.

The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta held, "In wake of the discussion made herein above, we are 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...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 Deena proceeded has been materially displaced by subsequent developments."

In Deena v. Union of India (1983), the Supreme Court has ruled that execution by hanging under Section 354(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) is constitutional.

The Court further observed, "Constitutional interpretation is organic and must remain responsive both to the evolution of constitutional doctrine and to the advances in scientific knowledge...We also observe that nothing contained in this judgment shall preclude the Union Government, should it consider appropriate, from undertaking a comprehensive review of the existing method of execution through an expert body comprising specialists in law, forensic medicine, neuroscience, penology, and allied disciplines with a view to examine whether any alternative method of execution better serves the constitutional objective of minimizing unnecessary pain while preserving the dignity of the condemned prisoner."

Earlier, the Court suggested that it should have better data from India and overseas on what is the impact of death by hanging is in terms of pain, etc., and to look at the matter from technological and scientific points of view.

The Court had also recorded the statement of Attorney General R. Venkataramani that the government may appoint a committee to consider the issue. 

On October 6, 2017, the then Chief Justice Dipak Misra observed that "the legislature can think of some other mode by which a convict who, in law, has to face the death sentence should die without pain. It has been said for centuries that nothing can be equated with painless death, and that is, possibly, the dignity in death."

The petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India calls into question the constitutional validity of Section 354(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. As per the petition, it does not challenge the imposition of the death penalty but only challenges the method of carrying out the death penalty.

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.

Cause Title: Rishi Malhotra v. Union of India [W.P.(Crl.) No. 145/2017]

Click here to read/download the Judgment

(This is a hearing story; the judgment was uploaded later)


Tags: