PIL filed in Supreme Court Seeking abolition of death sentence by hanging and replace it with intravenous lethal injection, shooting, electrocution or gas chamber in which death is just a matter of minutes
On 12/09/2017 Rishi Malhotra a Supreme Court advocate filed a PIL in the Supreme Court for abolishing the present practice of executing a death sentence by hanging which involves “prolonged pain and suffering” and to replace it with intravenous lethal injection, shooting, electrocution or gas chamber in which death is just a matter of minutes
The instant PIL is filled on the basis of the following documents
1. The report of The Royal Commission on Capital Punishment 1949-1953 which dealt with prevalent modes of execution of death
punishment and stated that three conditions should be fulfilled in executing
the death sentence:-
A. It should be as less painful as possible.
B. It should be quick as possible.
C. There should be least mutilation of the body.
2. The 35th report of The Law Commission of India in the year 1967 which studied the
various aspects of the mode of executing Death sentence in India. It noted the fact that most of the countries has either adopted Electrocution, Firing Squad or Gas Chamber of which Hanging was found to be in lesser countries.
In para 1149 the Law Commission concluded that there is a considerable body of opinion which would like hanging to be replaced by something more humane and more painless.
However, in para 1150 it concluded that certainly the method of execution of death sentence should be certain, humane, quick and decent. It also agreed that the real agonizing part is the anticipation of the impending death. However, at that stage the Law Commission admitted that they were not in a position to come to affirm conclusion as to which of the methods satisfied the above-mentioned tests as it waited and depended in the progress to be done in the field of science and technology etc.
3. The judgement of “Deena Vs. UOI, 1983 (4) SCC 645” wherein The Supreme Court dealt with the provision of sec.354(5) Cr.P.C. and held that the execution of the Death punishment should satisfy the following test viz.:-
1. It should be quick and simple as possible, the Act of execution should be as quick and as simple as possible and free from anything that unnecessarily sharpens the poignancy of the prisoner’s
apprehension.
2. The Act of the execution should produced immediate unconsciousness passing quickly into the death.
3. It should be decent.
4. It should not involve mutilation.
Though quite fairly at that stage the Court declined to strike down the validity of sec.354(5) Cr.P.C., yet, also held that the law being a dynamic science, the social utility of which consists in its ability to keep abreast of the emerging trends in social and scientific advance and its willingness to readjust its postulates in order to accommodate those trends. Life is not static. The purpose of law is to serve the
needs of life.
4. The celebrated Constitution Bench Judgment rendered in “Gian Kaur Vs. State of Punjab, 1996 (2) SCC 648” which devolve upon a Fundamental issue of Right to Life and Right to Death.
The unanimous verdict which came out from the said Judgment which is the backbone of the instant Public Interest Litigation reads as under:-
“The Right to Life including the Right to Live with human dignity would mean the existence of such a right upto the end of natural life. This also includes the right to a dignified life upto the point of death including a dignified procedure of death. In other words, this may include the right of a
dying man to also die with dignity when his life is ebbing out.”
5. The 187th Report of the Law Commission of India October, 2003 on the mode of the Execution of Death sentence has also taken note of the various methods of execution and categorically opined that‘hanging’ is undoubtedly accompanied by intense physical torture and pain.
The Law Commission infact went into detailed and different methods of execution through ages. It also noted that within India itself The Army Act, 1950, The Air Force Act, 1950 and The Navy Act, 1957 provided the execution of the death sentence by exercising either of the options namely one hanging by neck till death or being shot to death.
The said 187th Report also took pains to elaborate the detailed procedure as to manner in which a condemned prisoner is hanged till he is dead.
It also referred to the resolution adopted by the United Nations Economic & Social Council (ECOSOC) which had categorically resolved by way of safeguard No.9 which reads as under:-
“Where Capital punishment occurs it shall be carried out so as to inflict minimum possible suffering.”
On the basis of the above the prayer of the petitioner before the court is that
a) Declare provision contained u/s354(5)Cr.P.C., 1973 which laid down “when any person is sentenced to death, the sentence shall direct that he be hanged by the neck till he is dead”, to be ultravires the Constitution and especially incontravention of Article 21 of the Constitution being discriminatory and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution and also in contravention of theConstitution Bench Judgment in Gian Kaur’s case
b) Declare Right to Die by a dignified procedure of death is a Fundamental right as defined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India;
On 12/09/2017 Rishi Malhotra a Supreme Court advocate filed a PIL in the Supreme Court for abolishing the present practice of executing a death sentence by hanging which involves “prolonged pain and suffering” and to replace it with intravenous lethal injection, shooting, electrocution or gas chamber in which death is just a matter of minutes
The instant PIL is filled on the basis of the following documents
1. The report of The Royal Commission on Capital Punishment 1949-1953 which dealt with prevalent modes of execution of death
punishment and stated that three conditions should be fulfilled in executing
the death sentence:-
A. It should be as less painful as possible.
B. It should be quick as possible.
C. There should be least mutilation of the body.
various aspects of the mode of executing Death sentence in India. It noted the fact that most of the countries has either adopted Electrocution, Firing Squad or Gas Chamber of which Hanging was found to be in lesser countries.
In para 1149 the Law Commission concluded that there is a considerable body of opinion which would like hanging to be replaced by something more humane and more painless.
However, in para 1150 it concluded that certainly the method of execution of death sentence should be certain, humane, quick and decent. It also agreed that the real agonizing part is the anticipation of the impending death. However, at that stage the Law Commission admitted that they were not in a position to come to affirm conclusion as to which of the methods satisfied the above-mentioned tests as it waited and depended in the progress to be done in the field of science and technology etc.
3. The judgement of “Deena Vs. UOI, 1983 (4) SCC 645” wherein The Supreme Court dealt with the provision of sec.354(5) Cr.P.C. and held that the execution of the Death punishment should satisfy the following test viz.:-
1. It should be quick and simple as possible, the Act of execution should be as quick and as simple as possible and free from anything that unnecessarily sharpens the poignancy of the prisoner’s
apprehension.
2. The Act of the execution should produced immediate unconsciousness passing quickly into the death.
3. It should be decent.
4. It should not involve mutilation.
Though quite fairly at that stage the Court declined to strike down the validity of sec.354(5) Cr.P.C., yet, also held that the law being a dynamic science, the social utility of which consists in its ability to keep abreast of the emerging trends in social and scientific advance and its willingness to readjust its postulates in order to accommodate those trends. Life is not static. The purpose of law is to serve the
needs of life.
4. The celebrated Constitution Bench Judgment rendered in “Gian Kaur Vs. State of Punjab, 1996 (2) SCC 648” which devolve upon a Fundamental issue of Right to Life and Right to Death.
The unanimous verdict which came out from the said Judgment which is the backbone of the instant Public Interest Litigation reads as under:-
“The Right to Life including the Right to Live with human dignity would mean the existence of such a right upto the end of natural life. This also includes the right to a dignified life upto the point of death including a dignified procedure of death. In other words, this may include the right of a
dying man to also die with dignity when his life is ebbing out.”
5. The 187th Report of the Law Commission of India October, 2003 on the mode of the Execution of Death sentence has also taken note of the various methods of execution and categorically opined that‘hanging’ is undoubtedly accompanied by intense physical torture and pain.
The Law Commission infact went into detailed and different methods of execution through ages. It also noted that within India itself The Army Act, 1950, The Air Force Act, 1950 and The Navy Act, 1957 provided the execution of the death sentence by exercising either of the options namely one hanging by neck till death or being shot to death.
The said 187th Report also took pains to elaborate the detailed procedure as to manner in which a condemned prisoner is hanged till he is dead.
It also referred to the resolution adopted by the United Nations Economic & Social Council (ECOSOC) which had categorically resolved by way of safeguard No.9 which reads as under:-
“Where Capital punishment occurs it shall be carried out so as to inflict minimum possible suffering.”
On the basis of the above the prayer of the petitioner before the court is that
a) Declare provision contained u/s354(5)Cr.P.C., 1973 which laid down “when any person is sentenced to death, the sentence shall direct that he be hanged by the neck till he is dead”, to be ultravires the Constitution and especially incontravention of Article 21 of the Constitution being discriminatory and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution and also in contravention of theConstitution Bench Judgment in Gian Kaur’s case
b) Declare Right to Die by a dignified procedure of death is a Fundamental right as defined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India;
