New Delhi
The Supreme Court on Friday sought the Centre’s response on a plea that execution by hanging was unconstitutional as it was painful and not a dignified way of ending life.
A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud gave the government three weeks time to respond.
The petitioner lawyer Rishi Malhotra has sought declaration that Section 354 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) provides for execution of death sentence by hanging was ultra vires of the constitution.
The Section 354(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which says that “when any person is sentenced to death, the sentence shall direct that he be hanged by the neck till he is dead”.
The bench also asked Attorney General K.K. Venugopal to assist the court in the matter.
It asked the legislature to consider alternate modes of execution as it said that the mode of the execution of death sentence would be decided by the legislature as it would entail amending the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Supreme Court said it was conscious that it had earlier upheld the validity of carrying out the death sentence by hanging.
It said the Constitution was an organic compassionate document which recognises the principles of sanctity of life.
The petitioner lawyer told the court that execution of death sentence by hanging violated Article 21 of the Constitution which guarantees right to life with dignity.
He said the right to life with dignity also included right to death with dignity without pain and suffering.
The Section 354(5) of the Cr.PC is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution that guarantees right to life with dignity till natural end of the life.
As the petitioner lawyer addressed the court on less painful methods of execution, Justice Chandrachud said there was a lot of criticism on carrying out death sentence by administering lethal injection.
The petitioner has cited an earlier judgment of the top court which had said, “The act of the execution should be as quick and as simple as possible and free from anything that unnecessarily sharpens the poignancy of the prisoner’s apprehension, should produce immediate unconsciousness passing quickly into the death, should be decent and not involve any mutilation.”
Referring to the procedure as laid down in the Punjab and Haryana Jail Manual, the petitioner advocate says that the entire procedure was painful and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.
The advocate also referred to an earlier Law Commission’s report to tell the bench that the execution of death sentence by hanging was painful, brutal and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.