Centre gets more time to reply to plea against death sentence by hanging
New Delhi, Jan 9 : The Supreme Court on Tuesday gave the central government more time to respond to a plea that seeks execution of death sentence by hanging to be declared ultra vires of the Constitution.
A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud granted the Centre four weeks as it sought more time telling the court that the response to the plea was in the drafting stage.
As the court on Tuesday gave the government four weeks’ time to file its response, the petitioner lawyer told the court that in the US, 25 states were carrying out death sentence using lethal injection.
In the course of last hearing in the matter on October 6, last year, the court had said that it was conscious of the fact that it had earlier upheld the validity of death sentence by hanging.
The bench had asked Attorney General K.K. Venugopal to assist the court in the matter.
The top court had sought the response of the Centre on a petition by lawyer Rishi Malhotra who has urged the court to declare Section 354 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) — which provides for execution by hanging — ultra vires of the Constitution, contending that the method given therein was unconstitutional, painful and not a dignified way to end (human) life.
Section 354(5) says: “When any person is sentenced to death, the sentence shall direct that he be hanged by the neck till he is dead.”
The court had in the last hearing asked the legislature to consider alternate modes of execution as, it said, the mode of execution of death sentence would be decided by the legislature since the process entails amending the CrPC.
It had said the Constitution was an organic compassionate document which recognises the principles of sanctity of life.
The petitioner told the court that the execution of death sentence by hanging violated Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees right to life with dignity.
He contended that the right to life with dignity also included right to death with dignity, without pain and suffering.
“Section 354(5) is violative of Article 21 that guarantees right to life with dignity till natural end of the life,” the petitioner lawyer contended.
The petitioner also cited an earlier Supreme Court judgement that said: “The act of the execution should be as quick and as simple as possible and free from anything that unnecessarily sharpens the poignancy of the prisoner’s apprehension, should produce immediate unconsciousness (and) passing quickly into the death, should be decent and not involve any mutilation.”
Referring to the procedure as laid down in the Punjab and Haryana Jail Manual, the petitioner said the entire procedure was painful.
He also referred to an earlier Law Commission report telling the court that the execution of death sentence by hanging was painful, brutal and violative of Article 21.
IANS
