Discuss the constitutional basis on which the Supreme Court has upheld hanging as a mode of execution in India. Should Article 21 mandate a 'least painful' method of execution?

Article 21 permits deprivation of life only by a "procedure established by law" that is just, fair and reasonable. That test governs not merely the award of the death sentence but the manner of its execution — hanging by the neck till death under Section 393(5), BNSS, 2023 (earlier Section 354(5), CrPC) [2].

Constitutional basis for upholding hanging

• Deena v. Union of India (1983): a three-judge Bench held hanging not cruel — the process is quick and certain, unconsciousness supervenes almost instantaneously, death follows from dislocation of the cervical vertebrae, and a lingering death is excluded; hence no Article 21 violation [1].
• Precedential continuity: this view was approved by a Constitution Bench in Shashi Nayar (1992), and in August 2026 the Court declined to refer Deena to a larger Bench [3].
• Burden of proof on the challenger: the petitioner could cite no instance of a botched hanging in India, while lethal injection abroad carries a documented record of botched executions [3].
• Separation of powers: choice of method is a legislative-executive policy question absent proven cruelty.

Should Article 21 mandate the 'least painful' method?

• To a limited extent, yes — dignity under Article 21 survives till the last breath, and the State must minimise avoidable pain and suffering.
• But not as a judicially enforceable technique: "least painful" presupposes scientific consensus that does not exist; no alternative shows a demonstrable advantage [3].
• Better route — expert review: the Court expressly left the Union free to constitute an expert body (law, forensic medicine, neuroscience, criminology) and to revisit the issue on compelling evidence [3].

Thus Article 21 mandates a standard — dignity and minimum suffering — not a particular rope, needle or chamber. A government-led scientific review, coupled with the Law Commission's 262nd Report (2015) recommending phased abolition except for terror offences [4], offers the constitutionally sounder path forward.