'Hanged Till Death': SC Refuses To Replace Noose For Capital Punishment, Says No To 'Less Painful' Methods

The Supreme Court has denied a petition seeking to replace death by hanging with other "less painful" methods such as lethal injection. Upholding the constitutional validity of capital punishment by hanging, the Supreme Court clarified that hanging will remain the method of execution for now in the country.

A bench of justices, including Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, rejected a petition that sought the adoption of a different method, instead of hanging, for executing the death penalty in a manner that causes less pain to the convict and protects their dignity.

The Supreme Court also rejected the plea to refer three earlier judgements on the issue to a larger bench. The petitioner had sought that the three earlier apex court judgements on the issue be referred to a larger bench. However, the bench said the petition does not have a sufficient basis.

What Was Written In The Petition?

Lawyer Rishi Malhotra filed the petition suggesting alternatives to hanging, such as lethal injection, shooting, electrocution, or gas chamber, which can cause the death of the convict within a few minutes.

The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) described hanging as extremely painful, inhuman, and cruel. The petitioner sought that awarding the death penalty by hanging under Section 354(5) of the CrPC be declared unconstitutional and that the right to a dignified death be recognised as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The petition also pointed out that it takes almost 40 minutes to declare death after hanging, while the process is completed in about 5 minutes through shooting or lethal injection.

Malhotra also cited a United Nations resolution which states that where the death penalty is imposed, it should be conducted in a manner that inflicts the least possible suffering.

'Can Explore Alternatives'

The apex court added that its judgement is not the final word on the subject and that the issue may be examined again in the future if compelling scientific evidence is produced regarding alternative methods of execution.

"Before parting, we clarify that the dismissal of the present writ petition must not be understood as foreclosing future constitutional scrutiny should compelling scientific, medical, or empirical evidence emerges demonstrating that the factual and scientific basis on which the decision in Dina proceeded has been materially displaced by subsequent developments," it said.

The court also said that the Centre may constitute a committee of experts to hold a comprehensive review of alternative methods of carrying out the death penalty.

The Supreme Court had concluded the hearing and reserved its verdict on January 22.

Committee Was Formed To Consider Issue

Attorney General R Venkataramani, appearing for the Central Government, had previously told the court that the government had constituted a committee to consider the issue.

During the hearing on October 15, 2025, the Supreme Court had expressed displeasure that the central government was not willing to change the practice. In the hearing, it was also suggested that convicts be given the option to choose between hanging or lethal injection, but the Centre said in its affidavit that executing such a thing was "not practically feasible".

The court rejected this and claimed the centre did not appear willing to evolve with time.

Senior counsel Sonia Mathur, appearing for the Centre, argued that the matter was linked to a policy decision.

The bench then orally remarked: "The problem is that the government is not willing to change." It also said that this is a very old procedure and things have changed with time.