Supreme Court dismisses PIL petition that challenged death by hanging | Explained
The Supreme Court dismissed a public interest litigation seeking to replace hanging with alternative methods of execution such as lethal injection, shooting, electrocution, or the gas chamber
The bench held that prescribing hanging as the sole method of execution under Section 354(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 393(5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) does not violate the constitutional requirement of a procedure that is just, fair and reasonable
The petition, filed in 2017, had argued that death by hanging causes prolonged pain and suffering and sought recognition of a "right to die by a dignified procedure" under Article 21
The Court declined to refer the matter to a larger bench, but clarified that the government remains free to undertake a scientific review of execution methods, and that the issue could be revisited if compelling scientific or medical evidence on alternatives emerges
Article 21 and the "Procedure Established by Law" Standard
Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees that "no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law." Since Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court has read this to mean the procedure must also be just, fair and reasonable — effectively importing elements of due process into the Indian Constitution.
Key Details
- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) expanded Article 21 by linking it with Articles 14 and 19, requiring that any law depriving a person of life or liberty be non-arbitrary
- Article 21 does not bar a lawfully imposed death sentence outright; it only prohibits execution carried out in a "cruel, barbarous or degrading" manner
- The death penalty itself was held constitutional in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980), which confined it to the "rarest of rare" cases
The petitioners argued hanging fails the "just, fair and reasonable" test under Article 21; the Court held that hanging, as historically practised and medically assessed, does not cross the threshold into cruel or degrading punishment.
Deena v. Union of India (1983) — Constitutionality of Hanging
Deena alias Deen Dayal v. Union of India (1983) is the leading precedent on the constitutionality of execution by hanging. A three-judge bench examined medical and expert evidence on the mechanics of death by hanging and upheld Section 354(5) of the CrPC as consistent with Article 21.
Key Details
- Decided by the Supreme Court on 23 September 1983
- Held that Article 21 proscribes only executions carried out in a cruel, barbarous, or degrading manner — not the fact of execution itself
- Concluded that hanging, when properly conducted, is sufficiently swift and does not amount to torture
- The present 2026 judgment declined to refer this 1983 precedent to a larger bench, effectively reaffirming it
The 2026 PIL directly sought reconsideration of the Deena ruling in light of newer scientific literature; the Court's refusal to refer the matter means Deena continues to govern the constitutionality of hanging as the mode of execution.
Law Commission's 187th Report (2003) on Mode of Execution
The Law Commission of India's 187th Report, submitted in 2003, examined — on its own initiative — whether the prescribed method of execution needed modernisation, without addressing whether capital punishment itself should be retained or abolished.
Key Details
- Confined to three issues: the method of execution, judicial inconsistency in awarding death sentences, and the right of appeal to the Supreme Court in death sentence cases
- Recommended amending Section 354(5) of the CrPC to introduce lethal injection as an alternative mode of execution
- The recommendation was never legislatively adopted; hanging remains the sole prescribed method under both the CrPC (now repealed) and the BNSS
The petitioner relied on this two-decade-old recommendation to argue that Parliament and the judiciary had failed to act on expert advice; the Court held that adopting an alternative method is a policy choice for the Executive/Legislature, not something it could mandate through judicial review.
CrPC to BNSS Transition — Continuity of the Hanging Provision
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with effect from July 2024, but retained the same method of execution.
Key Details
- Section 354(5), CrPC → Section 393(5), BNSS: both provide for execution by "hanging by the neck till death"
- The BNSS is one of three new criminal codes (alongside the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita replacing the IPC, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam replacing the Evidence Act) that came into force in 2024
- Death sentences remain confined to the "rarest of rare" doctrine from Bachan Singh (1980), applied through subsequent sentencing guidelines
Because the BNSS carried forward the identical hanging provision without amendment, the constitutional challenge required examining both the historical CrPC provision and its current BNSS successor.
- PIL filed in 2017; judgment delivered by a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta on 19 August 2026
- Statutory basis: Section 354(5), CrPC (now Section 393(5), BNSS 2023)
- Leading precedent reaffirmed: Deena v. Union of India (1983), a three-judge bench decision
- Law Commission's 187th Report (2003) had recommended lethal injection as an alternative but was never enacted
- The Court noted that 49 of 50 US states use lethal injection as their primary method of execution, cited by the petitioner as comparative material
- The Court left open the possibility of future reconsideration if new scientific or medical evidence on execution methods emerges