Why in news?

Recently, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of hanging as a mode of executing a death sentence, dismissing a PIL that argued the method violates the right to a dignified death under Article 21.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• The Ruling
• How Hanging Is Designed to Work
• Grounds of the Challenge
• Constitutional and Legal Framework
• The Law Commission's Recommendation
• Why the Court Upheld Hanging
• Modern Execution Methods: A Global Snapshot

The Ruling

• A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta dismissed the petition challenging hanging.
• The Court held the challenge faced two key hurdles:
  • the 1983 precedent in Deena vs UOI (where a three-judge bench upheld hanging), and
  • Parliament's decision to retain hanging while enacting the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
• The Court affirmed that constitutional protections continue for prisoners on death row, stating: "this constitutional protection does not cease to exist at the gallows."

How Hanging Is Designed to Work?

• Hanging uses a calculated "drop" based on the convict's height and weight, intended to cause a fracture-dislocation at the C2-C3 vertebrae, producing near-instant unconsciousness.
• In Deena vs UOI, the Court had earlier examined medical evidence, expert opinion, and comparative execution methods, concluding that properly administered hanging is quick, causes no greater pain than other methods, and avoids barbarity, torture and degradation.

Grounds of the Challenge

• The petitioners argued that scientific understanding and constitutional doctrine have evolved since 1983.
• They sought a declaration that hanging is unconstitutional, arguing Article 21 includes a right to a dignified death procedure.
• They cited a 1992 study of 34 people hanged in England (1882–1945): while C2-C3 fractures were common, the "hangman's fracture" causing near-instant death occurred in only 3 of 34 cases, while 6 died of asphyxiation.
• Based on this, they argued hanging is unpredictable — too short a drop causes death by strangulation, too long a drop can cause decapitation — making it neither quick nor controllable.
• Government's Counter: Since 2003, India has conducted only eight executions, with no botched hanging on record — unlike lethal injection in the US, which has a well-documented history of failures.

Constitutional and Legal Framework

• The right to die with dignity flows from Article 21 (Right to Life). In Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996), the Supreme Court held that the right to life includes the right to live and die with dignity.
• Section 393(5) of the BNSS mandates that a person sentenced to death "shall be hanged by the neck till he is dead" — a provision largely unchanged since it first appeared in the CrPC in 1861.

The Law Commission's Recommendation

• The 187th Law Commission Report (2003), chaired by Justice M. Jagannadha Rao, had recommended amending the law to provide lethal injection as an alternative method of execution.
• It also noted that military courts-martial permit execution by shooting, which petitioners cited to argue hanging need not be the sole legal method.
• The Supreme Court, however, noted that Law Commission reports are only recommendatory, and Parliament's choice to retain hanging while enacting the BNSS amounted to a legislative reaffirmation of the existing framework.

Why the Court Upheld Hanging?

• The bench found no reason to revisit Deena, holding that the new scientific material did not displace its original basis, nor did it show that lethal injection, electrocution, lethal gas, or shooting offered any advantage over hanging.
• It reaffirmed that the long-drop hanging method satisfies the State's obligation to execute death sentences with "decency and decorum," without "degradation or brutality."
• Importantly, the Court did not close the issue permanently — it noted that constitutional law evolves, and future challenges could succeed if new scientific or empirical material fundamentally alters the assumptions behind Deena.
• It also left it open for the Union government to examine alternative execution methods if it wishes.

Modern Execution Methods: A Global Snapshot

• Global Trend: Over two-thirds of nations (113) have ended the death penalty in law or practice, though executions rose 12% in 2025 (Amnesty International).
• Prevalent Methods
  • Hanging: Widely used in Common Law countries (India, Singapore, Japan); authorised in 60 nations per a 2012 Cornell study.
  • Lethal Injection: Primary method in several US states and China; uses anaesthetic, paralytic, and potassium chloride, but prone to botched venous access.
  • Shooting: Used in China, North Korea, Somalia, and parts of West Asia; visually violent despite claims of near-instant death.
  • Beheading: Practised in Saudi Arabia, dependent on executioner precision.
  • Nitrogen Hypoxia: A new US method causing asphyxiation without panic response, though criticised as unvetted and experimental.

Conclusion

The verdict reaffirms judicial continuity by upholding a nearly century-old precedent, while balancing it against Article 21's evolving dignity jurisprudence.

By keeping the door open for future scientific evidence and legislative reform, the Court has struck a careful balance between constitutional stability and the possibility of humane progress in India's execution methods.