Keywords: Project 39A, NLU Delhi, Supreme Court, Execution by Hanging, Death Penalty
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court granted Project 39A of National Law University-Delhi the permission to intervene in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that aims to abolish the current practice of executing death row convicts through hanging. The PIL seeks to explore less painful alternatives for carrying out the death penalty. The bench, consisting of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra, is responsible for hearing the case.
Initially, the court decided to adjourn the hearings due to the absence of the Attorney General on that particular day. Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora, representing Project 39A, requested permission to intervene in the matter, which the bench granted.
Previously, the Supreme Court had shown a preference for forming an expert committee to assess the proportionality of the death penalty’s execution through hanging. While contemplating more humane options for the death penalty, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud had asked Attorney General Venkatramani to provide data on various aspects, such as the impact of death by hanging, the level of pain inflicted, the duration of the process, and the resources required for such executions. Additionally, the Chief Justice had inquired about the feasibility of adopting a different method that upholds human dignity. During the last hearing, he mentioned the possibility of constituting an expert committee comprising specialists from National Law Universities, doctors from AIIMS, and scientists to delve into this matter further.
The PIL argues for the elimination of the current practice of executing death row convicts through hanging, citing “prolonged pain and suffering” as its major concern. Advocate Rishi Malhotra, the petitioner, proposes alternative methods like intravenous lethal injection, shooting, electrocution, or the gas chamber, which could result in a convict’s death in a matter of minutes. The petitioner emphasizes the importance of preserving human dignity even in death and contends that the pain and indignity associated with hanging should be avoided when ending a convict’s life. To support this argument, the petitioner cites examples from other countries where hanging has been gradually abandoned as a method of executing the death penalty, noting that 36 states in the USA have already ceased its use. Instances of death row convicts left hanging for prolonged periods, enduring slow strangulation, are presented to highlight the cruelty and barbaric nature of death by hanging.
Lisa Gupta, NUSRL, Ranchi, Semester 3, an intern under Legal Vidhiya
