Is Death By Hanging a Cruel and Outdated Punishment?

  • Post category:Blog
  • Reading time:5 mins read

Is Death By Hanging a Cruel and Outdated Punishment?

Written by Vijaya lakshmi

Table of Contents

Introduction:

Capital punishment has been a part of India’s legal system for decades. Currently, hanging is the only method prescribed under Indian law. While intended as the ultimate deterrent for heinous crimes, the method of execution itself has come under scrutiny. Critics argue that hanging is painful, inhumane, and outdated, while supporters contend it is necessary to uphold justice for the rarest-of-rare crimes.

An Outdated Form of Justice:

Many arguments show that capital punishment, including death by hanging, is both cruel and outdated. There is always a risk of executing innocent people because no justice system is perfect, and unlike imprisonment, a wrongful execution cannot be undone. The death penalty is often applied arbitrarily, especially against the poor, minorities and vulnerable groups. It also violates basic human rights, including the right to life and the right not to suffer torture or degrading treatment, making it incompatible with human dignity. Studies show that the death penalty does not effectively deter crime, and even the United Nations has stated that there is no conclusive evidence that it prevents offences. Public opinion is also not a strong justification for hanging, because popular support does not make a human rights violation acceptable. More effective and humane methods exist to reduce crime without taking a human life.

Arguments in Favour of the Death Penalty:

Supporters believe the death penalty deters serious crimes like murder and creates fear that prevents offenders from repeating such acts. They also argue that it delivers retribution—meaning a life for a life—which they see as necessary for justice. Many feel it provides closure to victims’ families and reflects society’s strong stand against heinous offences.

Arguments Against the Death Penalty:

Opponents argue that the death penalty does not actually deter crime, as studies show no clear evidence of its effectiveness. There is a constant risk of executing innocent people due to judicial errors. They also highlight that the punishment is often applied unfairly, especially against the poor and minorities. Most importantly, it violates human rights and human dignity by taking a person’s life in an irreversible way.

Human Rights:

Critics argue that Article 21—the right to life—is violated by the death penalty, even at times when innocent people have been executed.

In India, the death penalty is still legal but is used only in very exceptional situations. The Supreme Court, in the famous Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) case, held that capital punishment should be awarded only in the “rarest of rare cases” where the crime is extremely brutal and society’s collective conscience is shocked. Under Indian law, offences like murder, terrorism-related acts, and certain cases of rape may attract the death penalty. However, courts must consider the criminal’s background, possibility of reform, and circumstances of the crime before giving this punishment. Over the years, Indian courts have become more careful, emphasising that the death penalty must be imposed only when life imprisonment is clearly inadequate.

Case laws:

In Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980), the accused Bachan Singh was sentenced to death for murdering members of his family. He challenged the constitutionality of the death penalty. The Supreme Court upheld it but ruled that capital punishment must be given only in the “rarest of rare cases” after balancing both aggravating and mitigating factors. Later, in Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983), the accused and his group committed multiple brutal murders in a village. The Court applied the Bachan Singh principle and further explained what “rarest of rare” means—especially where the crime is extremely brutal, shocks society’s conscience, and life imprisonment is insufficient.

Rishi Malhotra v. Union of India PIL:

In this case, the petitioner argued that death by hanging causes unnecessary pain, prolonged suffering, and violates the right to dignity under Article 21. He urged the Court to consider more humane scientific alternatives such as lethal injection. The Supreme Court acknowledged that hanging is an old method and observed that the government has not evolved with modern times. The Court has not yet struck down hanging but has asked the government to collect scientific data and examine whether a more humane method is possible. This ongoing case shows that even the judiciary is reconsidering whether the traditional method of execution still aligns with contemporary human-rights standards.

Conclusion:

The debate on whether death by hanging is a cruel and outdated punishment reflects the tension between justice, deterrence, and human dignity. While BNS Sections 101 and 103 allow the death penalty for the most brutal forms of murder, the question remains whether the method of execution should also evolve with modern standards. The ongoing Rishi Malhotra case shows that even the Supreme Court is willing to re-examine whether hanging meets the requirements of a humane and dignified death under Article 21. India may not abolish the death penalty soon, but it can certainly reconsider how it is carried out. Ultimately, a just legal system must ensure not only that the guilty are punished, but that punishment is delivered in a manner consistent with humanity, constitutional values, and scientific progress.

References:

Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684

Machhi Singh & Others v. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCC 470

Rishi Malhotra v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 145/2017 — decided on 6 October 2017.

Tags: , , , ,