{"id":120084,"date":"2026-08-20T11:26:24","date_gmt":"2026-08-20T05:56:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/?p=120084"},"modified":"2026-08-20T11:26:24","modified_gmt":"2026-08-20T05:56:24","slug":"constitutional-validity-of-hanging","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/constitutional-validity-of-hanging\/","title":{"rendered":"Constitutional Validity of Hanging: Supreme Court Upholds India&#8217;s Mode of Execution"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2><b>Constitutional Validity of Hanging Latest News<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Recently, the Supreme Court upheld the <\/span><b>constitutional validity of hanging<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> as a mode of executing a death sentence, dismissing a PIL that argued the method violates the right to a dignified death under Article 21.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><b>The Ruling<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta dismissed the petition challenging hanging.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Court held the challenge faced two key hurdles:\u00a0<\/span>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">the <\/span><b>1983 precedent in <\/b><b><i>Deena vs UOI<\/i><\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> (where a three-judge bench upheld hanging), and\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li><b>Parliament&#8217;s decision to retain hanging<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> while enacting the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Court affirmed that constitutional protections continue for prisoners on death row, stating: <\/span><b>&#8220;<\/b><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">this constitutional protection does not cease to exist at the gallows.&#8221;<\/span><\/i><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><b>How Hanging Is Designed to Work<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Hanging uses a calculated &#8220;drop&#8221; based on the convict&#8217;s height and weight, intended to cause a <\/span><b>fracture-dislocation at the C2-C3 vertebrae<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">, producing near-instant unconsciousness.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">In <\/span><b><i>Deena vs UOI<\/i><\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">, the Court had earlier examined medical evidence, expert opinion, and comparative execution methods, concluding that properly administered hanging is quick, causes no greater pain than other methods, and avoids barbarity, torture and degradation.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><b>Grounds of the Challenge<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The petitioners argued that scientific understanding and constitutional doctrine have evolved since 1983.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">They sought a declaration that hanging is unconstitutional, arguing Article 21 includes a right to a dignified death procedure.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">They cited a 1992 study of<\/span><b> 34 people hanged in England (1882\u20131945)<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">: while C2-C3 fractures were common, the &#8220;hangman&#8217;s fracture&#8221; causing near-instant death occurred in only 3 of 34 cases, while 6 died of asphyxiation.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Based on this, they argued hanging is unpredictable \u2014 too short a drop causes death by strangulation, too long a drop can cause decapitation \u2014 making it neither quick nor controllable.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Government&#8217;s Counter:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> Since 2003, India has conducted only eight executions, with no botched hanging on record \u2014 unlike lethal injection in the US, which has a well-documented history of failures.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><b>Constitutional and Legal Framework<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The right to die with dignity flows from Article 21 (Right to Life). In <\/span><b><i>Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996)<\/i><\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">, the Supreme Court held that the right to life includes the right to live and die with dignity.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b><i>Section 393(5)<\/i><\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> of the BNSS mandates that a person sentenced to death &#8220;shall be hanged by the neck till he is dead&#8221; \u2014 a provision largely unchanged since it first appeared in the CrPC in 1861.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><b>The Law Commission&#8217;s Recommendation<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The <\/span><b>187th Law Commission Report<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> (2003), chaired by Justice M. Jagannadha Rao, had recommended amending the law to provide lethal injection as an alternative method of execution.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">It also noted that military courts-martial permit execution by shooting, which petitioners cited to argue hanging need not be the sole legal method.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Supreme Court, however, noted that Law Commission reports are only recommendatory, and Parliament&#8217;s choice to retain hanging while enacting the BNSS amounted to a legislative reaffirmation of the existing framework.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><b>Why the Court Upheld Hanging<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The bench found no reason to revisit Deena, holding that the new scientific material did not displace its original basis, nor did it show that lethal injection, electrocution, lethal gas, or shooting offered any advantage over hanging.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">It reaffirmed that the long-drop hanging method satisfies the State&#8217;s obligation to execute death sentences with &#8220;<\/span><b>decency and decorum<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">,&#8221; without &#8220;<\/span><b>degradation or brutality<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">.&#8221;<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Importantly, the <\/span><b>Court did not close the issue permanently<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> \u2014 it noted that constitutional law evolves, and future challenges could succeed if new scientific or empirical material fundamentally alters the assumptions behind Deena.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">It also left it open for the Union government to examine alternative execution methods if it wishes.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><b>Modern Execution Methods: A Global Snapshot<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Global Trend:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> Over two-thirds of nations (113) have ended the death penalty in law or practice, though executions rose 12% in 2025 (Amnesty International).<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><b>Prevalent Methods<\/b><\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Hanging<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">: Widely used in Common Law countries (India, Singapore, Japan); authorised in 60 nations per a 2012 Cornell study.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Lethal Injection<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">: Primary method in several US states and China; uses anaesthetic, paralytic, and potassium chloride, but prone to botched venous access.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Shooting:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> Used in China, North Korea, Somalia, and parts of West Asia; visually violent despite claims of near-instant death.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Beheading:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> Practised in Saudi Arabia, dependent on executioner precision.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Nitrogen Hypoxia:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> A new US method causing asphyxiation without panic response, though criticised as unvetted and experimental.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><b>Conclusion<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The verdict reaffirms judicial continuity by upholding a nearly century-old precedent, while balancing it against Article 21&#8217;s evolving dignity jurisprudence.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">By keeping the door open for future scientific evidence and legislative reform, the Court has struck a careful balance between constitutional stability and the possibility of humane progress in India&#8217;s execution methods.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>Source: <a href=\"https:\/\/indianexpress.com\/article\/explained\/explained-law\/supreme-court-hanging-constitutional-death-penalty-10839650\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\">IE<\/a> | <a href=\"https:\/\/www.hindustantimes.com\/ht-explainers\/india-death-penalty-execution-by-hanging-supreme-court-petition-constitutional-capital-punishment-lethal-injections-101787068180871.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\">HT<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Constitutional Validity of Hanging was upheld by the Supreme Court, which ruled that execution by hanging does not violate Article 21 or dignity jurisprudence.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":18,"featured_media":120097,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[18],"tags":[9647,60,22,59],"class_list":["post-120084","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-upsc-mains-current-affairs","tag-constitutional-validity-of-hanging","tag-mains-articles","tag-upsc-current-affairs","tag-upsc-mains-current-affairs-tag","no-featured-image-padding"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/120084","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/18"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=120084"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/120084\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":120099,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/120084\/revisions\/120099"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/120097"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=120084"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=120084"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=120084"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}