Methods of Capital Punishment:  Judicial Review

Context:

Recently, in August 2026, a Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta of the Supreme Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking to replace hanging as a method of execution on the ground that it is inhumane, with alternatives such as lethal injection. The Court clarified that, based on the available scientific evidence, hanging cannot be conclusively regarded as wholly inhumane. However, it also left the door open for the adoption of better scientific alternatives in the future.

Key Legal and Constitutional Dimensions:

In Indian jurisprudence, capital punishment and the method of its execution are primarily examined against two constitutional and legal standards:

• • • Article 21 and the Right to a Dignified Death: Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees every citizen the “Right to Life and Personal Liberty.” Through various landmark judgments, including Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court has established that the right to live with dignity also encompasses the right to dignity in death. The petitioners argued that the excessive pain associated with hanging violates this constitutional guarantee of dignity.
    • Judicial Precedents: The Supreme Court referred to its landmark judgment in Deena v. Union of India (1983). In that case, the Court held that the modern method of hanging, known as the long-drop method, is swift, causes comparatively less pain, and does not disfigure the body. According to the Court, alternatives such as electrocution or lethal injection have not been shown to have any specific or established advantage over hanging.
    • Legislative Intent: Section 393(5) of the recently enacted Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 also retains hanging as the prescribed method of execution for capital punishment. The Court observed that making laws and changing their provisions primarily falls within the domain of the legislature.

Court’s Approach:

• • • The Court made it clear that if a scientific method emerges in the future that is less painful and more humane than hanging, its constitutional validity can be examined.
    • The Court also indicated that the Central Government may constitute a high-level committee comprising legal experts, neuroscientists, and forensic experts to collect data on methods of execution followed in different countries and examine the feasibility of more humane alternatives.
    • The government argued that due to the lack of sophisticated medical infrastructure and doctors in prisons located in remote areas of India, hanging remains an administratively predictable and reliable method of execution.

Law Commission’s 262nd Report:

The 262nd Report of the Law Commission of India (2015) made a significant recommendation concerning capital punishment in India. It recommended that, except for offences related to terrorism and waging war against the State, the death penalty should be completely abolished for all other ordinary crimes.

The key findings of the Commission were as follows:

• • • No Deterrent Effect: There is no conclusive evidence that the death penalty effectively reduces crime.
    • Irreversible Nature: If an innocent person is executed due to a judicial error, the mistake cannot be rectified.
    • Reformative Justice: The criminal justice system should focus on the reformation of offenders rather than retribution.
    • Alternative Punishment: The Commission considered life imprisonment without the possibility of parole as a strong alternative to the death penalty.

Conclusion:

According to Amnesty International, more than two-thirds of the countries in the world have abolished the death penalty. In India, capital punishment is imposed only in the “rarest of rare” cases. As long as the death penalty continues to exist in the country, it is essential to maintain a delicate balance between the sovereign power of the State and the principle of human dignity.