Supreme Court dismisses PIL petition that challenged death by hanging | Explained

Supreme Court dismisses PIL petition that challenged death by hanging Explained The central question before the Supreme Court was whether prescribing a single method of execution, hanging, conforms to the constitutional requirement of a procedure that is just, fair and reasonable.

Key points

• Union of India (1983), a three-Judge Bench examined the constitutional validity of Section 354(5) of the CrPC and upheld hanging as a mode of execution.
• On August 18, 2026, the Supreme Court upheld hanging as the method of executing a death sentence, dismissing a PIL petition challenging its constitutional validity.
• The Law Commission revisited the matter in its 187th Report in 2003.
• Hanging by the neck was first prescribed as the method of executing a death sentence under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
• The petitioner additionally relied on the constitutional guarantee of dignity under Article 21.

On August 18, 2026, the Supreme Court upheld hanging as the method of executing a death sentence, dismissing a PIL petition challenging its constitutional validity. File Photo Credit: The Hindu.

In practice, the petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of Section 354(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 393(5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, insofar it prescribes hanging as the sole method of executing a death sentence. The petition is from 2017.

In practice, the central question before the Supreme Court was whether prescribing a single method of execution, hanging, conforms to the constitutional requirement of a procedure that is just, fair and reasonable.

Hanging by the neck was first prescribed as the method of executing a death sentence under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The long-drop method was intended to cause a fracture of the cervical vertebrae, resulting in an immediate loss of consciousness and death. The method was premised on a clinical calculation of the height and weight of the condemned.

Notably, the matter of whether hanging is a humane method of execution has been examined by various institutions. The Law Commission of India, in its 35th Report in 1967, examined different modes of execution and acknowledged the view that hanging should be replaced by a more humane and painless method. It remarked that the method of execution should be "certain, humane, quick and decent". Nevertheless, it did not recommend an immediate change, holding that the problem should await further advances in science and technology.

Notably, the Law Commission revisited the matter in its 187th Report in 2003. It observed that hanging is accompanied by physical suffering, pain and mental agony, and referred to international safeguards requiring the State to inflict the minimum feasible suffering while carrying out a lawful death sentence.

Meanwhile, the petitioner additionally relied on the constitutional guarantee of dignity under Article 21. In Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996), a Constitution Bench had held that the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity until the end of natural life. The argument was that this protection does not disappear when a person is sentenced to death and that even a prisoner on death row is entitled to dignity until execution. What is the concept of stare decisis?

As it has persuasive and binding authority while resolving a case with allegedly comparable facts, stare decisis is a term derived from Latin which means "to stand by things decided." It is a legal principle that directs courts to adhere to previous judgments, or judgments of higher courts or tribunals.

This petition faced an significant legal hurdle: the constitutional validity of hanging had already been decided by a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court. A Bench of a lesser strength ordinarily cannot depart from the decision of a larger Bench unless there are compelling reasons to do so. According to The Court has, this could include a significant constitutional development, legislative amendment, or cogent scientific and empirical evidence showing that the earlier decision had become untenable.

In Deena v. Union of India (1983), a three-Judge Bench examined the constitutional validity of Section 354(5) of the CrPC and upheld hanging as a mode of execution. The Court held that when properly administered, hanging was a quick, simple, and decent method of execution without unnecessary mutilation. The judgment had remained the governing precedent for more than four decades.

For context, the position was further strengthened since Deena case had subsequently been considered and approved by a Constitution Bench (at least five judges) in Shashi Nayar v. Union of India (1992).

Therefore, the two-Judge Bench had a particularly limited scope to reconsider whether hanging itself was constitutional. What is the Supreme Court's stance?

Notably, the Supreme Court held that the earlier decision in Deena case continued to bind it.

Meanwhile, the petitioner argued that lethal injection was a more scientific, humane and painless method of execution. Nevertheless, the Court identified that this claim was not backed by unimpeachable scientific or empirical evidence.

According to The Court, deena case had itself considered alternative methods of execution, including electrocution, lethal gas, shooting and lethal injection. It had concluded that none of these methods demonstrated any distinct or demonstrable advantage over hanging.

Consequently, the Court discovered no sufficient basis to conclude that the legal position settled in Deena case had become unconstitutional or otherwise untenable. Why did the Supreme Court uphold death by hanging?

In practice, the Court did not hold that hanging is conclusively the most humane method of executing a death sentence. Rather, it held that there was insufficient basis for this two-Judge Bench to overturn a precedent that had been settled by a larger Bench and subsequently approved by a Constitution Bench.

Deena had upheld hanging more than four decades ago. The petitioner was additionally unable to place before the Court conclusive scientific or empirical evidence establishing that an alternative method, particularly lethal injection, was demonstrably more humane or painless.

In the absence of such developments or evidence, the principle of stare decisis prevented the Bench from taking a different view. The Court, therefore, dismissed the challenge to hanging as the prescribed method of execution.

Nevertheless, it clarified that the dismissal does not foreclose future constitutional scrutiny of the method of execution.

For now, supreme Court dismisses PIL petition that challenged death by hanging remains the part of the story worth watching, and further updates are likely as more details are confirmed.