New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its judgment on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the constitutional validity of "death by hanging" as a mode of execution in India. A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta heard extensive arguments from petitioner Rishi Malhotra, Project 39A, and the Attorney General before closing the proceedings.

The petition seeks to strike down Section 354(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now BNSS equivalent), which mandates that a convict be "hanged by the neck till he is dead," terming it "barbaric, cruel, and lingering."

During the hearing, the Court shifted the spotlight from the convict to the executioner. Justice Sandeep Mehta raised a critical point regarding the "psychological impact" of the process on the hangmen and witnesses.

"Persons who are witnessing... quite a serious thing."

This observation aligns with global human rights discourses that argue the state-sanctioned killing process brutalizes not just the convict but also the prison staff tasked with the grim duty.

Petitioner Rishi Malhotra argued that hanging involves prolonged pain, with the body "lingering on the rope" for up to 40 minutes. He advocated for intravenous lethal injection, shooting, or electrocution, citing that 49 out of 50 US states have adopted injection as a humane alternative. He urged the Court to at least give the convict an option, similar to the provisions in the Army Act (which allows shooting).

However, Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora, representing Project 39A (a criminal justice research group), cautioned the Court against assuming lethal injections are "painless." She pointed out that evidence from the United States suggests numerous "botched-up executions" where prisoners suffered excruciating pain due to variable chemical compositions. She suggested leaving the matter to an Expert Committee to gather scientific evidence.

Attorney General R. Venkataramani informed the Court that the Union Government is examining the issue at the "highest level" and has constituted committees to review the mode of execution. However, when the Union previously argued that giving convicts a choice was not "feasible," Justice Mehta had sharply remarked:

"Problem is, the government is not ready to evolve... it's a very old procedure, things have changed over a period of time."

This judgment could fundamentally reshape India's capital punishment framework. While the death penalty itself remains legal, the method of execution is now under strict constitutional scrutiny under Article 21 (Right to Dignity). If the Court strikes down hanging, India may have to adopt modern, albeit controversial, methods like lethal injection or gas chambers, forcing a legislative overhaul of the criminal code.