The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Central government to furnish information on whether execution of a death sentence by hanging was cruel and offending to human dignity along with information on alternative and less painful methods of carrying out death sentence by lethal injunctions, or through electrocution.

The bench comprising of Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice P.S. Narasimha indicated that they may constitute a committee to seek information on different methods of execution of death sentence having representation from National Law University, Delhi, National Law School, Bengaluru or Hyderabad, doctors from AIIMS or other medical institutions and scientists.

The court also desires to seek material from the point of view of science and technology.  The bench asked whether today's science suggests that hanging is the best method or there are other methods which are more conforming to human dignity while carrying out a death sentence.

The court asked the AG that, "There are two perspectives to look at, one, is there any alternate method, which is more consistent with human dignity so as to render this method of execution as unconstitutional. Two, even if there is no alternate method, does this method satisfy the test for proportionality so as to be upheld."

Initially, the court intended to post the case for consideration next week but after Mr Venkataramani told the court that he would like to have a look at the issue, the court said that matter would be listed on 2 May thereby giving sufficient time to the Attorney General to go into the matter.

During the course of the hearing PIL petitioner advocate Rishi Malhotra, who has challenged the provision allowing for the execution of death
sentence by hanging, described it as inhuman and cruel and favoured death sentence by administering lethal injection or by electrocution in
electric chair.

PIL petitioner was seeking a direction for quashing of the provision contained under Section 354(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code as ultra
vires the Constitution and especially Article 21 being discriminatory and also in contravention of the Constitution Bench judgment in Gian Kaur's case.

During the hearing, the Bench told PIL petitioner that it is in the domain of the experts in the field of medical and science to determine which method is less painful and humane.

As far as courts are concerned, they can only look into the validity of the statutory provisions. Chief Justice Chandrachud said that there has be material on record to justify displacing the 1983. judgment that had upheld the existing provision of executing death sentence by hanging.
The 1983 judgment was authored by then Justice Y V Chandrachud.

Case Details:-

Writ Petition (Crl) No. 145/2017

Rishi Malhotra
Versus
Union of India & Ors.