Rishi Malhotra vs Union of India

In this case, the Supreme Court of India was asked to decide whether executing death-row prisoners by hanging them by the neck is cruel and unconstitutional. The petitioner, advocate Rishi Malhotra, argued that hanging is barbaric and causes intense physical and mental pain. He suggested that India should switch to more modern and humane methods, such as lethal injections or shooting. He argued that every person has a fundamental right to die with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court rejected the petition and refused to change the law. The Court pointed out that a larger bench of three judges had already declared hanging valid in 1983 in the Deena case. Under court rules, a smaller bench of two judges cannot easily overturn a decision made by a larger bench. Furthermore, the Court noted that there is no scientific proof that alternative methods like lethal injections are pain-free. In fact, evidence from countries like the United States shows that lethal injections often fail, causing prolonged suffering to the prisoner. However, the Court clarified that the government can set up an expert committee to study other scientific methods if it wants to in the future.

A lawyer challenged the rules that say hanging by the neck is the only way to carry out a death sentence in India. He argued that hanging is too painful and violates a person's right to die with dignity.

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, stating that past judgments have already approved hanging as legal. It noted that alternative methods, like lethal injections, have failed frequently in other countries and are not proven to be more humane.

This judgment clarifies that court decisions cannot be changed without strong scientific proof. It also shows that the law values human dignity, but will not force the government to adopt untried, risky methods of execution.