India | Supreme Court reserves verdict on plea against hanging convicts

The Supreme Court today reserved its verdict on a plea seeking a painless procedure for death convicts other than hanging.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta has reserved their judgment after hearing Attorney General for India R Venkataramani, Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora (for Project 39A), and Advocate Rishi Malhotra, who is the petitioner.

In 2023, the Supreme Court had allowed an intervention application filed by National Law University, Delhi's Project 39A in the plea seeking a painless procedure for death convicts.

Earlier hearings and government position:

The Supreme Court was informed that the Central Government was deliberating forming a committee to look into the issue of a painless procedure for the death penalty other than hanging. "We are deciding on who should be made part of such a committee, looking at names. I will be able to give a clearer picture soon," AG Venkataramani had told a former CJI Chandrachud-led bench.

The Supreme Court had asked the Central Government to provide it with relevant information on the process of death penalty by hanging. 

The Court had also asked the government to look into the aspect of technology and science, to check if there is a method far more consistent with human dignity other than hanging a convict. 

Further data was also sought on alternate methods used in other countries.

Petitioner's arguments:

Advocate Rishi Malhotra, the petitioner, had argued before the bench that death by dignity is a fundamental right. "When a man is hanged, his dignity is lost. A convict whose life has to end, he should not have to suffer the pain of hanging," Malhotra had further told the bench.

While taking the court through the process of hanging, the petitioner advocate had submitted that the body of a condemned person should be left hanging till the medical practitioner says that life is extinct.

Submitting that other countries were slowly moving away from the process of hanging a death convict, the Court was told that the USA has adopted administering a lethal injection.

Details of the petition and comparisons:

The petition before the Supreme Court sought to declare provisions contained under Section 354(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code as ultra vires of the Constitution for being discriminatory and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution, and also in contravention of the Constitution Bench judgment in Gian Kaur's case.

It also sought to declare the right to die by a dignified procedure of death as a fundamental right as under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The Court was told that while hanging a convict, the entire execution process takes more than 40 minutes to declare the prisoner to be dead, whereas the shooting process involves not more than a few minutes. In the case of intravenous lethal injection, the Court was told that all is over in 5 minutes.

Additional claims:

The petitioner argued that execution as contemplated under Section 354(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code is not only barbaric, inhuman, and cruel, but also against resolutions adopted by the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).

Case details:

Case Title: Rishi Malhotra vs. Union of India
Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta

Source: lawbeat.in,  Aishwarya Iyer, January 22, 2026

"One is absolutely sickened, not by the crimes that the wicked have committed,
but by the punishments that the good have inflicted."

— Oscar Wilde