Now Reading: Supreme Court leaves hanging as execution method, rejects change bid
-
01
Supreme Court leaves hanging as execution method, rejects change bid
The Supreme Court on August 18 dismissed a petition seeking to replace hanging with lethal injection, electrocution or shooting as execution methods. It allowed the Union government to study whether scientific advances…
The Supreme Court on August 18 dismissed a petition seeking to replace hanging with lethal injection, electrocution or shooting as execution methods. It allowed the Union government to study whether scientific advances offer a more dignified method, but for now upheld Section 393(5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, which prescribes hanging by rope.
The court noted that death by hanging serves no restorative purpose. The petitioners argued that a painless execution is part of the right to life under Article 21. The Law Commission in 2015 recommended abolishing the death penalty except for terror cases, but Parliament retained hanging in the 2023 criminal law reforms.
The ruling keeps India among a shrinking group of nations that still use hanging. The government-appointed BNSS review committee may now recommend changes, but any decision on the method or abolition of the death penalty requires legislative action.
Indian Opinion Analysis
The Supreme Court last examined execution methods in Deena Nath v. Union of India (1983), upholding hanging as constitutional. Since then, the Law Commission of 2015 recommended abolishing the death penalty except for terrorism-related offences, a recommendation the government has not acted on. Currently, 27 countries executed prisoners in 2024, per Amnesty International, while over 140 nations have abolished it in law or practice. India has around 500 prisoners on death row, with the average stay exceeding a decade due to mercy petitions and appeals. The BNSS review committee may now study execution methods, but the government has shown no inclination to revisit the death penalty itself. Parliament would need a two-thirds majority in both Houses, plus ratification by at least half the states, to amend the fundamental rights chapter that protects Article 21.
Source: hindustantimes.com
This brief was synthesised by AI from the source linked above.
