New Delhi: The Supreme Court (SC) on Friday asked the Narendra Modi government at the Centre to explain within three weeks why it should not ban hanging by the neck as a mode of execution for death row convicts.
According to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by lawyer Rishi Malhotra in his personal capacity, “an individual’s right to life includes the right to die with dignity, and that hanging was too barbaric and cruel a way to end one’s life”.
The petition seeks the replacement of hanging by lethal injection or shooting.
The petitioner told the court that execution of death sentence by hanging violated Article 21 of the Constitution which guarantees right to life with dignity.
“The right to life with dignity also included right to death with dignity without pain and suffering. Article 21 (Right to Life) of the Constitution includes the right of a condemned prisoner to have a dignified mode of execution so that death becomes less painful,” the plea read.
Reacting to it, a Bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and D.Y. Chandrachud issued the notice to the Centre and sought its response in three weeks on the PIL.
“Prima facie we observe that the legislature can think of some other mode by which a convict facing the death sentence should die in peace but not in pain,” the Bench said.
Section 354 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) provides for execution of death sentence by hanging. The plea challenges the constitutional validity of this provision.
In India, military court-martials allow shooting as a means of execution.
On shooting and administering lethal injections as alternatives to hanging by the neck, Justice Chandrahud said, “Shooting was associated with authoritarian regimes, and extensive research in the United States showed that lethal injections led to severe suffering of about 45 minutes before a convict died.”
The court, however, said it was willing to reconsider its earlier decision of upholding hanging as the preferred means of execution.
“The Constitution of India is a live document that has evolved with time. The Constitution recognises the sanctity of flexibility. Once a provision held valid, with the influx of time, can become invalid,” the Bench stated.
The apex court added the Constitution was an organic compassionate document that recognises the principles of sanctity of life. It also asked Attorney General K.K. Venugopal to assist the court in the matter.
