"'Hanging Is Not Cruel, Torturous Or Degrading': Supreme Court Upholds Validity Of Execution By Hanging Under CrPC & BNSS"

"[T]he State has discharged the heavy burden which lies upon it to prove that the method of hanging prescribed by Section 354(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not violate the guarantee contained in Article 21 of the Constitution." Supreme Court, in a significant ruling, upheld the constitutional validity of Section 354(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (and its corresponding provision Section 393(5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), holding that execution of the death penalty by hanging does not violate the fundamental right to life and dignity under Article 21.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that the petitioner failed to place any concrete scientific or empirical material demonstrating that hanging had lost its efficacy or that alternative methods like lethal injection were demonstrably superior.

The writ petition in the form of a public interest litigation was instituted by advocate Rishi Malhotra under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, challenging the constitutional validity of hanging as the sole method of execution. The petitioner contended that hanging is a barbaric, inhumane, and cruel practice that inflicts intense physical pain and psychological trauma, thereby violating the right to die with dignity.

The primary question before the court was whether Section 354(5) of the CrPC and Section 393(5) of the BNSS, prescribing hanging by the neck as the sole mode of execution, are ultra vires Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The court was also called upon to determine whether the ratio in the landmark judgment of Deena v. Union of India requires reconsideration in light of subsequent developments in science and human rights jurisprudence.

Court Reaffirms Binding Precedent of Deena

At the outset, the bench noted that the constitutional validity of execution by hanging has already been authoritatively examined and settled by a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court in Deena v. Union of India. The court emphasized that the principle of stare decisis mandates that a bench of lesser strength should not depart from the ratio of a larger bench that has withstood the test of time for over four decades.

No Compelling Scientific Evidence Presented - Court Emphasizes Binding Nature Of Stare Decisis

The judges observed that unless it is demonstrated that the earlier view has been rendered unconstitutional by significant constitutional developments or cogent scientific evidence, there is no justification for a two-judge bench to take a different view. The bench highlighted that Deena was further considered and approved by a Constitution Bench in Shashi Nayar v. Union of India, making the scope of judicial interference even more restricted.

Evaluating Alternative Methods of Execution - Bench Analyzes Flaws In Lethal Injection And Electrocution

Addressing the petitioner's prayer for alternative methods such as lethal injection, shooting, or electrocution, the court reviewed extensive material regarding their practical failures. Referring to the detailed comparative analysis in Deena, the court noted that electrocution, lethal gas, and shooting possess no distinct or demonstrable advantage over hanging. The bench pointed out that evidence from the United States reveals high rates of botched executions associated with lethal injection, including severe complications in venous access and unreliable drug protocols.

Military Statutes Operates in Distinct Sphere - Rejects Argument Based on Army, Air Force, and Navy Acts

The court outrightly rejected the petitioner's argument of discrimination under Article 14 based on the availability of shooting as an alternative mode of execution under the Army Act, 1950, the Air Force Act, 1950, and the Navy Act, 1957. The bench held that military statutes operate in a distinct field governing a separate class of persons subject to military law and cannot serve as valid touchstones for testing the constitutionality of penal provisions governing civilians.

Law Commission Recommendations Are Merely Recommendatory - Legislature Consciously Retained Hanging In BNSS

Dealing with reliance placed on the 187th Report of the Law Commission of India, the court observed that such reports are purely recommendatory in nature and do not carry the force of law. The bench presumed that Parliament, while enacting the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, was fully aware of the debate and consciously chose to retain hanging as the sole mode of execution under Section 393(5).

"The method is a quick and certain means of executing the extreme penalty of law. It eliminates the possibility of a lingering death."

No Instance of Botched Execution in India - Court Notes Lack Of Empirical Proof Under Domestic Framework

The court recorded that neither the petitioner nor the impleader, Project 39A, placed on record any credible material to demonstrate even a single instance of a botched execution in India under the existing statutory framework. The bench reiterated that isolated failures in foreign jurisdictions operating under vastly different conditions cannot form the basis for striking down an Indian legislative enactment.

Future Scrutiny Not Foreclosed - Dismissal Leaves Room For Policy Review By Executive

While dismissing the writ petition, the Supreme Court clarified that the judgment does not foreclose future constitutional scrutiny should compelling scientific evidence emerge demonstrating that the factual basis of Deena has been materially displaced. The bench observed that the Union Government remains at liberty, should it consider appropriate, to undertake a comprehensive review of the method of execution through an expert body comprising specialists in law, forensic medicine, neuroscience, and penology.

The Supreme Court accordingly dismissed the writ petition, holding that Section 354(5) of the CrPC and Section 393(5) of the BNSS successfully pass the constitutional muster of Articles 14 and 21. The ruling firmly anchors the legality of execution by hanging, reaffirming that the prescribed statutory mechanism remains constitutionally sound, decent, and free from unnecessary brutality.

Date of Decision: 18 August 2026