State can't take life arbitrarily or without dignity: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday held that even when the State is authorised to take a life, it cannot exercise that power arbitrarily, excessively or in a manner that violates human dignity.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said the method of execution must satisfy the constitutional standards by minimising suffering and preserving, as far as possible, the inherent dignity of the condemned.

The bench made the observations while dismissing a petition seeking abolition of the practice of executing a death row convict by hanging and replacing it with methods such as intravenous lethal injection.


The top court said the death penalty stands apart from other punishments in its severity and finality.

"When a court of law, upon due adjudication, imposes a sentence of death for a crime, the State, through its constitutional machinery, is called upon to carry out a punishment of the gravest nature, one that, once executed, is incapable of being undone," it said.

Also Read | SC upholds hanging as mode of death penalty; dismisses PIL for alternative way to execute death row prisoners

The bench said if an error occurs, whether in the process or the proportionality of punishment, the consequences cannot be undone.

"It is this final and irreversible character of death penalty that has placed it at the centre of continuing debate in constitutional law, criminal jurisprudence and moral philosophy, both in India and across jurisdictions," it said, adding that legitimacy of the death penalty has been debated over centuries.

It said that in India, the question of legality of capital punishment has been examined through the prism of constitutional scrutiny, beginning with a decision of the top court that affirmed that death penalty did not violate the guarantees under Articles 14, 19, or 21 of the Constitution, provided it was imposed upon conclusion of a lawful trial with robust procedural safeguards.

The bench said in the pre-colonial period, the administration of criminal punishment across the country was neither uniform nor governed by any codified legal standard.

Also Read | Election black money cases must be probed faster, says Supreme Court

It said while the Indian Penal Code, 1860, provided the legal authority to impose death penalty, it was the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1861, that first established 'hanging by the neck' as the sole method to carry it out.

"This selection was framed as a humanitarian reform of the era, utilizing the long-drop technique. The method was premised on a clinical calculation of the condemned's height and weight to ensure a fracture of the cervical vertebrae, purportedly resulting in instantaneous loss of consciousness and life," it said

Referring to an earlier Constitution Bench ruling, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said the right to life includes the right to live with dignity until the end of natural life, and that this protection extends to death row prisoners.

"This constitutional protection does not cease to exist at the gallows, it must apply with equal emphasis to prisoners who are on death row," the bench said.

The court noted that while capital punishment is legally recognised, the manner in which it is carried out must meet constitutional standards, including minimising suffering and preserving the dignity of the condemned person as far as possible.

The bench also noted that when the matter first came before the court in 2017, the Centre had been asked to examine whether more humane and less painful alternatives to hanging could be considered.

However, the court said that in May 2023, it was informed that the government was considering setting up an expert committee to examine the issue, but no further update had been provided on whether such a committee had actually been constituted.

(With inputs from PTI)