5 min learnNew DelhiUp to date: Aug 20, 2026 06:35 AM IST
Can a way of execution devised in colonial India nonetheless fulfill the Structure’s promise of dignity? The Supreme Courtroom on Tuesday (Aug 18) stated it may possibly, not less than on the fabric presently earlier than it.
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta upheld the constitutional validity of hanging as a mode of executing a demise sentence, dismissing a PIL that argued the tactic is scientifically unreliable and violates the precise to a dignified demise underneath Article 21.
The courtroom held that the problem bumped into two hurdles – the 1983 precedent of Deena vs UOI by which a three-judge bench upheld hanging as a constitutional mode of execution, and the Parliament’s determination to retain hanging whereas enacting the BNSS.
It stated, “this constitutional safety doesn’t stop to exist on the gallows, it should apply with equal emphasis to prisoners who’re on demise row.”
Why is hanging being challenged?
Hanging is designed to work by a calculated “drop” primarily based on the individual’s peak and weight, meant to trigger a fracture-dislocation on the C2-C3 vertebrae and produce about near-instant unconsciousness.
The Supreme Courtroom in Deena vs UOI upheld the constitutional validity of hanging after inspecting medical proof, professional opinion, and comparative execution strategies. The courtroom held that hanging, when correctly administered, is a fast and sure technique of execution and doesn’t violate Article 21. It stated that the method causes no better ache than every other identified technique and avoids “barbarity, torture and degradation.”
However the petitioners argued that each the scientific understanding and constitutional doctrine have developed since. The petition sought a declaration that the availability prescribing hanging was unconstitutional and argued that Article 21 features a proper to die by a dignified process. They stated the tactic is “accompanied by intense bodily torture and ache,” and inherently unpredictable; too quick a drop causes demise by strangulation, too lengthy a drop can decapitate.
Story continues beneath this advert
Reliance was positioned on a 1992 research of the skeletal stays of 34 folks hanged in England between 1882 and 1945. Fractures at C2-C3 have been frequent, however the “hangman’s fracture” — assumed to trigger near-instant demise—confirmed up in solely three of the 34 instances; six died of asphyxiation as a substitute. They argued that this made hanging neither fast nor controllable and thus violated Article 21, because it isn’t reliably instantaneous, the run-up to execution causes extreme psychological struggling, and its outcomes can’t be managed.
The Union argued that since 2003, solely eight executions have taken place in India and identified that no botched execution has ever been recorded in India, whereas deadly injection within the US carries a well-documented historical past of failures.
What does the legislation say about hanging?
The appropriate to die with dignity flows from the precise to life assured underneath Article 21 of the Structure. The Supreme Courtroom in Gian Kaur v State of Punjab (1996) held that the precise to life contains the precise to stay and consequently to die with dignity.
Part 393(5) BNSS offers that the place an individual is sentenced to demise, “the sentence shall direct that he be hanged by the neck until he’s lifeless.”
Story continues beneath this advert
The clause has barely modified because it was first launched within the CrPC in 1861, has survived a number of amendments, and now seems within the BNSS.
What has the Regulation Fee stated?
A key plank of the problem was the Regulation Fee of India’s 187th report submitted in 2003 underneath the chairmanship of Justice M. Jagannadha Rao.
After inspecting the execution practices in India and overseas, the fee advisable that the legislation “be amended by offering an alternate mode of execution of the demise sentence by deadly injection till the accused is lifeless.”
The report additionally examined navy legal guidelines underneath which demise sentences awarded by court-martial could also be carried out by taking pictures. The petitioners additionally relied on these provisions to argue that hanging needn’t stay the only legally recognised mode of execution.
Story continues beneath this advert
The SC famous that the Regulation Fee reviews are recommendatory and that Parliament retained hanging whereas enacting the BNSS, an element the Courtroom handled as a legislative reaffirmation of the present framework.
Why did the SC uphold hanging?
The bench discovered no purpose to revisit Deena. It famous that the petitioners had positioned scientific materials earlier than the Courtroom however held that the fabric didn’t displace the idea on which Deena had been determined. Nor did it set up that deadly injection, electrocution, deadly gasoline or taking pictures provided a bonus over hanging.
It referred to the reasoning in Deena, the place hanging by the long-drop technique was described as a course of supposed to result in instant unconsciousness by cervical fracture. The Courtroom stated the present technique continues to fulfill the State’s obligation to hold out a demise sentence with “decency and decorum” and with out “degradation or brutality.”
Whereas dismissing the petition, the bench stopped wanting treating the difficulty as closed eternally. It noticed that constitutional legislation evolves and that future challenges may come up if new scientific, medical or empirical materials essentially alters the assumptions on which Deena was determined. It additionally left it open to the Union authorities to look at different strategies of execution, ought to it select to take action.
