Rethink death sentence in execution review

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has again upheld hanging as a valid method of executing a death sentence.

Key points

• The Supreme Court has again upheld hanging as a valid method of executing a death sentence.
• India's judicial record demonstrates why the punishment remains contested.
• The bigger concern is that death cannot be reversed.
• The recent Muzaffarnagar episode adds another reason for caution.
• Abolishing the death penalty does not create the criminal justice system pacifist.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has again upheld hanging as a valid method of executing a death sentence. While allowing the Centre to explore faster, less painful and dignified methods, it additionally stated the method can be reconsidered if evidence of an alternative emerges. The petition was regarding the manner of execution. But changing the method does not change the nature of punishment. Whether a person is hanged or killed by another method, the result is the same. It is retributive, not reformative, justice. The question cannot be reduced to how much pain an execution causes or how long it takes. It should be whether the State should continue to take the life of a person it has convicted.

India's judicial record demonstrates why the punishment remains contested. At present, 574 prisoners are on death row, the highest number since 2016. From 2016 to 2025, sessions courts handed 1, 310 death sentences. High courts confirmed 70, commuted 411 to life terms and acquitted 285. Project 39A data notes only concerning one in 20 death sentences between 2000 and 2015 were upheld on appeal. The overwhelming majority did not survive higher judicial scrutiny.

Notably, the bigger concern is that death cannot be reversed. In Manoj vs Madhya Pradesh (2022), the Supreme Court laid down mandatory protocols to prevent death sentences from being imposed without proper consideration of mitigating circumstances, a convict's mental state, background and capacity for reform. If the justice system requires such careful examination before imposing the death penalty, the risk of irreversible misstep is clear.

In practice, the recent Muzaffarnagar episode adds another reason for caution. A trial court judge offered 22 death sentences in 10 cases over four months, raising worries regarding judicial temperament and how trial courts respond to pressure in cases involving heinous crimes and robust public pressure.

Abolishing the death penalty does not create the criminal justice system pacifist. Serious and atrocious crimes can still be punished with life imprisonment, including without remission where the law permits. The State does not have to take a life to punish a convict. Moreover, the plain truth is that an innocent person executed cannot be brought back. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has left the question of the method of execution open to future evidence. The country should employ this moment to discuss the larger problem of whether India needs capital punishment at all.

For now, rethink death sentence in execution review remains the part of the story worth watching, and further updates are likely as more details are confirmed.