The Supreme Court of India’s recent observation that it is prepared to review the validity of death by hanging as a mode of execution marks a crucial moment in the country’s criminal justice system.
For over four decades, India has continued to rely on this archaic and cruel method, despite the advancement of medical science and the growing global consensus that hanging inflicts unnecessary pain and suffering. It is time for India to end this outdated practice and adopt a more humane, less painful method of execution—if the death penalty must be retained at all.
The method of hanging was adopted during British colonial rule and has remained unchanged since India’s independence. According to Section 354(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, “when any person is sentenced to death, the sentence shall direct that he be hanged by the neck till he is dead.” This procedure was accepted as the most “effective” method of execution at the time. However, what may have been acceptable in the 19th century has no justification in the 21st century. The progress of science, medicine, and human rights standards now demands that India re-examine this method and the pain it inflicts.
Death by hanging is often assumed to cause an instant and painless death, but it can be a prolonged and agonizing process. If the drop is too short, the condemned person dies slowly from strangulation, which can last several minutes. If the drop is too long, it can result in decapitation gruesome and undignified outcome. Even when the drop is calculated correctly, there is immense suffering during the process. Studies in forensic medicine have shown that hanging can cause extreme neck fractures, spinal cord damage, and asphyxiation, often accompanied by involuntary body movements and convulsions.
The very spectacle of hanging is barbaric and incompatible with the ideals of human dignity enshrined in India’s Constitution. Article 21 guarantees every individual the right to life and personal liberty, and by judicial interpretation, this includes the right to die with dignity. If the state must take a life through a court-ordered sentence, it bears the moral and legal duty to do so in a manner that is as painless and dignified as possible.
Across the world, nations have been abandoning hanging as a mode of execution. In the United States, forty-nine out of fifty states that retain the death penalty have shifted to lethal injection, considering it a more humane method. Countries such as Japan, Singapore, and Iran still use hanging, but they have faced strong criticism from international human rights organizations. Even in countries where the death penalty remains legal, there has been a consistent effort to minimize the pain and suffering involved in the process. Most of the countries in Europe have abolished as enshrined both in the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention of Human rights.
The United Nations and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which India is a party, emphasize that executions, if carried out, must not involve torture, cruelty, or inhuman treatment. Hanging clearly fails this test. Modern technology offers alternatives such as lethal injection, nitrogen hypoxia, or even the firing squad—methods that, while still debatable, are considered quicker and less painful.
India’s continuation of hanging as a method of execution stands in sharp contrast to its image as a modern, progressive democracy that values human rights. The moral argument is straightforward: even when the state executes an individual convicted of the most heinous crimes, it should not do so in a manner that causes unnecessary suffering. The purpose of capital punishment, if retained, is justice —not vengeance. Subjecting a human being to a painful and degrading death undermines the very principles of justice that the punishment seeks to uphold.
Furthermore, the Indian Law Commission in its 262nd report (2015) had already recommended the abolition of the death penalty for all crimes except terrorism-related offenses. Even that report stressed that the method of execution must be re-examined to ensure it meets the constitutional standard of dignity and non-cruelty. The Supreme Court’s willingness to review the validity of hanging provides a much-needed opportunity for reform. India must constitute a scientific committee comprising medical experts, forensic scientists, and human rights specialists to assess various execution methods and recommend one that is least painful and most consistent with human dignity. Lethal injection, though not perfect, has been widely adopted for this reason. Other methods such as nitrogen hypoxia, which induces unconsciousness before death, may also be explored.
The most humane approach would be to move toward the complete abolition of the death penalty. But until that goal is realized, India must at least ensure that executions are carried out in a manner that reflects compassion and respect for human life.
Conclusion
The persistence of death by hanging in India is a cruel relic of colonial times that has no place in a modern democracy. It is physically brutal, psychologically traumatic, and morally indefensible. The state cannot claim to uphold human dignity while executing citizens in such a barbaric fashion. If justice must be served through the death penalty, it should be done with the minimum possible suffering. The Supreme Court’s review offers India a historic opportunity to align its penal practices with the principles of humanity, dignity, and modernity. Hanging must end as it is rooted in retributive justice and denies the possibility of redemption. After all justice should uplift rather than mirror the crime. As Mahatma Gandhi beautifully put it “ An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.”
K.S. Venkatachalam
K.S. Venkatachalam is an independent columnist based in Bengaluru, India. He writes on public policy, politics, and socio-economic issues for various national and international publications.
No comments:
Post a Comment