SC dismisses petition seeking alternative to execution by hanging

1. At a Glance

• The Supreme Court dismissed a plea seeking replacement of hanging (Section 354(5), CrPC) with a "less painful" method like lethal injection, shooting, or electrocution [1][3].
• Reaffirmed 1983 precedent (Deena v. Union of India) that hanging does not violate Article 21 (right to life/dignity) [2].
• Left the door open: government may still commission an expert review of execution methods if new scientific/medical evidence emerges [1][3].
• High UPSC relevance — intersects Article 21 jurisprudence, capital punishment debate, and the BNSS transition from CrPC.

2. Why in the News

• On Tuesday, 18 August 2026, a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta dismissed Rishi Malhotra v. Union of India, refusing to direct the Centre to find an alternative to hanging [4].
• The Bench also declined to refer the 1983 Deena precedent to a larger bench [2].

3. Background & Evolution

• 1983: Deena @ Deena Dayal v. Union of India — three-judge Bench upheld Section 354(5) CrPC, holding hanging is quick, certain, and does not amount to cruel/inhuman treatment under Article 21; death results from dislocation of cervical vertebrae with near-instantaneous unconsciousness [2].
• 1992: Shashi Nayar v. Union of India — a Constitution Bench reaffirmed the Deena ruling [2].
• 2017: Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra filed the present petition challenging Section 354(5) CrPC, urging alternatives (lethal injection, shooting, electrocution) claiming hanging takes ~40 minutes versus ~5 minutes for other methods [1].
• 2023: Bhartiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 replaced CrPC; the hanging provision now corresponds to Section 393(5), BNSS [5].
• 18 August 2026: SC finally dismisses the petition [1][4].

4. Core Static Facts

Item	Detail
Provision challenged	Section 354(5), CrPC, 1973 — now Section 393(5), BNSS, 2023 [5]
Constitutional ground invoked	Article 21 (right to life and dignity) [2]
Petitioner	Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra [1]
Case title	Rishi Malhotra v. Union of India [1]
Bench (2026)	Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta [4]
Leading precedent	Deena v. Union of India (1983), 3-judge bench [2]
Reaffirming precedent	Shashi Nayar v. Union of India (1992), Constitution Bench [2]
Alternatives proposed by petitioner	Lethal injection, shooting, electrocution [1]
Court's finding on alternatives	No demonstrable advantage over hanging; lethal injection (used in the US) has "a history of botched executions" [5]
Petitioner's failure	Could not cite a single instance of a botched hanging execution in India [5]

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Legal / Constitutional

• Court declined to refer Deena (1983) to a larger bench, preserving continuity of precedent on Article 21 and capital punishment methodology [2].
• Judgment carves out scope for future constitutional scrutiny if compelling scientific/medical/empirical evidence emerges — not an absolute foreclosure [5].
• Reflects continuing judicial deference to legislative choice on mode of execution absent proven cruelty.

Ethical / Governance

• Raises the enduring ethics-of-punishment debate: dignity of the condemned vs. deterrence and finality of sentence [5].
• Court suggested (without directing) that the Union government could set up an expert body — law, forensic medicine, neuroscience, criminology — to review execution methods, signalling openness to executive-led reform [1][5].

Scientific / Technological

• Central evidentiary question was medical/forensic: comparative "botched execution" rates of hanging vs. lethal injection, electrocution, lethal gas, shooting [5].
• Court relied on studies concluding no method has a "distinct or demonstrable advantage" over hanging [5].

Administrative

• Petition intersects the CrPC-to-BNSS transition (2023), showing how litigation on old CrPC provisions is being read into corresponding BNSS sections [5].
• Centre's stance (per contemporaneous reporting) was reportedly not in favour of adopting lethal injection [S1, per Deccan Herald headline].

Historical

• Case sits in an unbroken judicial lineage: Deena (1983) → Shashi Nayar (1992) → Rishi Malhotra (2026), each upholding hanging [2].

6. Recent Developments (last 12-18 months)

• 18 August 2026: SC dismisses the Rishi Malhotra petition; Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta delivers verdict [1][4].
• SC clarifies its ruling does not preclude a Union government-led comprehensive review of execution methods via an expert body [5].
• Reported earlier in proceedings: Centre indicated it was not in favour of switching to lethal injection [1].
• BNSS, 2023 (in force since July 2024) has recast the hanging provision as Section 393(5) [5].

7. Prelims Hooks

• Section 354(5) of CrPC, 1973 prescribed hanging as the mode of execution in India.
• Under BNSS, 2023, the equivalent provision is Section 393(5).
• Landmark 1983 case upholding hanging: Deena v. Union of India.
• Deena was reaffirmed by a Constitution Bench in Shashi Nayar v. Union of India (1992).
• 2026 case name: Rishi Malhotra v. Union of India.
• Bench that dismissed the 2026 plea: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta.
• The Court held death by hanging results from dislocation of the cervical vertebrae with near-instantaneous unconsciousness (per Deena, 1983).
• The petitioner failed to cite any instance of a botched hanging execution in India.
• The Court noted lethal injection (used in the US) has a history of botched executions.
• The right invoked against Section 354(5)/393(5) was Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty/dignity).
• The Court left open the possibility of future constitutional scrutiny if new scientific/medical/empirical evidence emerges.
• The Court suggested the Union government could set up an expert body (law, forensic medicine, neuroscience, criminology) to review execution methods — but did not direct it.
• The SC declined to refer the Deena precedent to a larger bench.
• India retains hanging as the sole legally prescribed method of execution (no lethal injection/electrocution/firing squad in statute).

8. Mains Relevance

• GS-II: Polity & Governance — Judiciary, Fundamental Rights (Article 21), judicial review of statutory provisions.
• GS-II: Also relevant to Statutory/Constitutional Bodies if an expert review body is eventually constituted.
• Possible Mains stems: 1. "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?" (GS-II) 2. "Critically examine the continuing relevance of the death penalty in India in light of evolving standards of human dignity under Article 21." (GS-II) 3. "Should the mode of execution in India be reviewed by an expert scientific body rather than left to judicial precedent? Discuss." (GS-II/GS-IV, ethics of state-sanctioned punishment)

9. Related Topics to Study Next

• Capital punishment debate in India — Law Commission of India Report No. 262 (2015) recommended abolition of death penalty except for terrorism offences.
• Bhartiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 — replaced CrPC; relevant for tracking renumbered provisions.
• Article 21 jurisprudence — Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), expansion of "life and liberty."
• Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) — "rarest of rare" doctrine for awarding death sentence.
• Mercy petitions and Article 72/161 — presidential/gubernatorial clemency powers.
• Comparative execution methods globally — lethal injection (US), and associated controversies (useful for GS-II international comparison).
• Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 — companion criminal law reform alongside BNSS.

10. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• Confusing Section 354(5) CrPC with its BNSS successor Section 393(5) — CrPC is no longer in force since BNSS commencement (July 2024); the current provision is under BNSS.
• Mixing up Deena v. Union of India (1983, upheld hanging) with Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980, "rarest of rare" doctrine for imposing death sentence) — different issues (method vs. imposition).
• Assuming the SC banned future review — it explicitly did NOT foreclose future constitutional scrutiny or a government-led expert review.
• Attributing the plea to a government body — it was filed by a private petitioner (Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra), not PIL by an NGO.
• Believing India has adopted or is adopting lethal injection — no such change has occurred; hanging remains the sole prescribed method.