Supreme Court Ruling on Executions
India’s highest legal authority has validated hanging as a legally sound method for carrying out death sentences. Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta refused to forward a petition demanding a more humane execution process to a larger group of judges. They maintained that current provisions under Section 354 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Section 393(5) of the BNSS remain constitutionally valid based on the precedent set by the Dina judgment.
Scope for Future Scientific Reviews
Historically, capital punishment execution methods have sparked intense global debate over human rights and ethics. Judges clarified that dismissing this specific writ petition does not block future legal challenges. If compelling medical or empirical data eventually disproves the factual foundations of the earlier Dina ruling, courts might reconsider this specific execution method.
Arguments For Painless Alternatives
Advocate Rishi Malhotra argued that dying with dignity is a fundamental human right protected under Article 21. He explained that a standard hanging can take more than 40 minutes for a medical professional to officially declare the prisoner dead. In contrast, execution by shooting takes only a few minutes, and an intravenous lethal injection completes the process in five minutes. Representatives from Project 39A and Attorney General R Venkataramani also presented arguments before the bench reserved its judgment on January 22.
Earlier court sessions revealed that government officials were contemplating a special committee to explore alternative execution technologies. Petitioners stressed that current practices violate United Nations Economic and Social Council resolutions against cruel punishments. They urged the government to examine modern science to find methods more aligned with basic human dignity, noting that countries like the United States have already shifted toward lethal injections. Despite these arguments, judges found no immediate reason to abandon the existing framework.