Supreme Court dismisses PIL petition that challenged death by hanging | Explained

This case offers a critical study of judicial precedent and the doctrine of stare decisis (Latin for 'to stand by things decided'). In the Indian judicial system, lower courts are bound by the decisions of higher courts, and smaller benches of the Supreme Court of India are bound by the decisions of larger benches. The petitioner challenged Section 354(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, but faced a significant hurdle: a three-judge bench had already upheld hanging in Deena v. Union of India (1983), and a five-judge Constitution Bench approved it in Shashi Nayar v. Union of India (1992). Therefore, the current two-judge bench could not overrule these larger benches without compelling reasons, such as a significant constitutional development or new, undeniable scientific evidence. For UPSC Mains (GS-2), understanding how judicial precedent provides stability and predictability to the law, while also exploring the mechanisms for constitutional evolution (when a smaller bench refers a matter to a larger bench), is essential.

The debate over the method of execution involves continuous scrutiny by governance bodies, notably the Law Commission of India. The Commission acts as an advisory body to the government on legal reform. The article highlights that the Commission examined capital punishment in its 35th Report (1967) and 187th Report (2003). While acknowledging that hanging involves physical suffering and mental agony, and referencing international safeguards for minimizing suffering, the Commission has historically stopped short of recommending an immediate change, often citing the need to wait for further scientific advancements. This illustrates the slow pace of legal reform in sensitive areas. For UPSC, candidates should understand the role of the Law Commission of India in shaping public policy and the ongoing tension between established legal procedures and evolving human rights standards in the context of criminal justice administration.

The core of the petitioner's argument rested on Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. A crucial expansion of this right occurred in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996), where a Constitution Bench ruled that the right to life inherently includes the right to live with human dignity until the end of natural life. The petitioner argued that this right to dignity extends even to prisoners on death row and during the execution process itself. The challenge is whether hanging, which relies on a 'long-drop' method to fracture cervical vertebrae, meets the standard of a procedure that is 'just, fair and reasonable' (a requirement established in the Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) case). For GS-2, candidates must analyze how the Supreme Court of India balances the retributive aspect of capital punishment with the fundamental right to dignity, and how interpretations of Article 21 continually evolve to encompass broader human rights concerns.