New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday highlighted the Centre’s unwillingness to evolve on the method of execution for death row convicts, following the government’s indication that it may not be “very feasible” to allow prisoners the option of lethal injection as an alternative to hanging. The observation came during the hearing of a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking to replace hanging with more humane methods of execution.

A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard arguments from senior advocate Rishi Malhotra, who filed the PIL in 2017. Malhotra contended that at the very least, death row convicts should be given a choice between hanging and lethal injection. He argued that execution via lethal injection is widely recognized as quick, humane, and dignified, unlike hanging, which he described as “cruel and barbaric,” as the condemned often suffers for an extended period, with bodies lingering on the rope for up to 40 minutes.

Malhotra emphasized international practice, noting that 49 out of 50 states in the United States have adopted lethal injection as the primary mode of execution. He argued that India’s current practice of hanging was outdated and that modern methods would be more aligned with constitutional guarantees against cruel and inhumane treatment.

Centre’s Stand on Lethal Injection

The Centre, represented by its counsel, submitted that providing an option to convicts may not be “very feasible.” The government’s position, as reflected in the counter-affidavit, is that the mode of execution is a policy decision, and the authorities have the discretion to decide whether to introduce alternative methods.

Justice Mehta observed critically that “the problem is that the government is not ready to evolve over the period of time,” underscoring that global practices and societal norms have changed significantly over the years. The bench suggested that the Centre reconsider Malhotra’s proposal and provide informed advice on whether death row convicts could be offered a choice in the method of execution.

Background of the PIL and Earlier Court Orders

The PIL initially filed in 2017 sought abolition of execution by hanging, proposing less painful alternatives such as intravenous lethal injection, shooting, electrocution, or gas chamber. The petition referenced the 187th Report of the Law Commission, which had recommended removing hanging from the statute and adopting more humane methods.

In 2018, the Centre opposed the suggestion, asserting before the Supreme Court that hanging was “quick and simple” and that other methods, including lethal injection or firing squads, were not demonstrably less painful. The joint secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs, in a counter-affidavit, stated that hanging avoided unnecessary prolongation of suffering and was free from procedures that could “unnecessarily sharpen the poignancy of the prisoner.”

The apex court, in May 2023, had noted the Attorney General R. Venkataramani’s submission that the government was considering appointing a committee to examine issues raised in the PIL, including whether hanging remained the most proportionate and least painful method of execution. The court emphasized the need for “better data” from the Centre on the comparative pain and efficacy of different execution methods, while clarifying that it could not direct the legislature to adopt a specific method of execution.

Key Legal Issues and Court Observations

During Wednesday’s hearing, the court reiterated that the matter raises significant questions about the competence of the government to review its own policy decisions on execution and the necessity of updating these in light of modern standards of decency and human rights.

Justice Mehta noted that while the legislature sets the death penalty framework, the executive’s discretion in selecting the mode of execution could and should evolve over time, particularly given global practices and recommendations from expert bodies. The bench posted the matter for further hearing on November 11, 2025, seeking instructions from the Centre regarding the status of the proposed committee and any developments in reviewing execution methods.

International Context and Human Rights Considerations

Malhotra highlighted the international trend toward lethal injection, noting that most developed nations now consider hanging outdated, cruel, and inconsistent with modern human rights standards. Lethal injection, widely practiced in the United States, is seen as a method that minimizes physical suffering and upholds human dignity, aligning with India’s constitutional mandate under Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.

The PIL also cited other methods, including electrocution and gas chamber, as alternatives, though lethal injection remains the most widely accepted and administratively feasible method internationally.

Implications for Death Penalty Law in India

The case underscores the continuing debate in India over capital punishment and the need to balance legal tradition with evolving standards of humanity and decency. Currently, execution by hanging remains the only sanctioned method under Indian law. The Supreme Court’s continued engagement with the issue signals its willingness to scrutinize executive discretion and policy decisions relating to the mode of execution while respecting legislative primacy.

The bench’s insistence on considering global practices and expert recommendations could eventually pave the way for policy reform, potentially offering death row convicts the option to choose lethal injection, provided the government decides to evolve its stance in line with contemporary standards.