The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a petition seeking to replace hanging with a less painful method of executing the death penalty but left the door open for future challenges if new scientific evidence emerges.
A two-judge bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta dismissed the plea, stating the petitioner had not presented a strong enough case to reconsider the 1983 ruling in Deena v. Union of India, which upheld hanging as constitutional. The court noted that Sections 354(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and its successor, Section 393(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS), remain valid for now.
The bench clarified its decision does not permanently close the debate. “The dismissal of the present writ petition must not be understood as foreclosing future constitutional scrutiny,” the court said. It added that if evidence demonstrates hanging is no longer the most humane method, the issue could be revisited.
The ruling also urged the central government to examine alternatives. The judgment stated nothing in the decision prevents the Union government from conducting a thorough review of execution methods through an expert body. Such a review should include specialists in law, forensic medicine, neuroscience, and criminology to evaluate whether other methods might better align with constitutional principles of minimizing pain while preserving dignity.
The court has previously acknowledged the Constitution must adapt to advances in scientific knowledge and legal doctrine. While the ruling does not mandate immediate changes, it reflects this evolving perspective.
The plea was filed in 2017 by Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra, who challenged the constitutionality of hanging under Section 354(5) of the CrPC, now replaced by the BNSS. Malhotra argued hanging is cruel and outdated, violating the right to life, which he said includes the right to die with dignity. He cited global trends, noting many countries have adopted alternatives like lethal injection.
Related: India Lacks Support for Arbitration
The central government, represented by Attorney General R. Venkataramani, told the court earlier this year it was examining the issue at the highest levels. No formal review has been announced yet.
Project 39A, a criminal justice initiative providing legal aid to death row prisoners, also participated in hearings. Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora, representing the project, noted lethal injection has not been proven more humane. She supported forming an expert committee to study the matter in detail.
The ruling does not address broader ethical questions about the death penalty itself. It focuses narrowly on execution methods, though the decision’s language suggests the debate could resurface if new evidence or public pressure emerges.
Hanging remains the sole legal method of execution in India. The court’s suggestion for a government-led review indicates the conversation is not finished, even if no immediate changes are expected. While the ruling dismisses the current petition, it leaves room for future challenges if circumstances change.
Malhotra’s argument—that the right to life extends to the manner of death—was not rejected outright. The court instead placed the burden on petitioners to provide stronger evidence before reconsidering its position. Any future evidence will need to be both scientifically rigorous and legally persuasive to overcome established precedent.
Recent cases have highlighted concerns about judicial processes in capital punishment. The Bombay High Court recently addressed digital evidence integrity, a factor that could influence future debates on execution methods.
