{"id":13886,"date":"2026-08-18T20:12:14","date_gmt":"2026-08-18T20:12:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/koshalsambada.in\/?p=13886"},"modified":"2026-08-18T20:12:14","modified_gmt":"2026-08-18T20:12:14","slug":"no-evidence-lethal-jab-is-less-painful-sc-rejects-plea-to-replace-hanging-as-execution-mode-india-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/koshalsambada.in\/?p=13886","title":{"rendered":"‘No evidence lethal jab is less painful’: SC rejects plea to replace hanging as execution mode | India News"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\"'No<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
The dismissal of the present writ petition must not be understood as foreclosing future scrutiny. Constitutional interpretation is organic and must remain responsive, both to the evolution of constitutional doctrine and to advances in scientific knowledge<\/span><\/div>\n<\/section>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

NEW DELHI: Supreme Court<\/a> Tuesday dismissed a plea seeking to replace the present mechanism of execution by hanging with alternatives like the lethal injection.A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said there was no scientific material to back the claim that hanging as a mode of execution was physically painful and physiologically traumatic in comparison to other methods, and refused to pass any directive on a petition filed by senior advocate Rishi Malhotra. The court left it to the Centre to take a call on the issue in future if needed.“The available material does not establish that lethal injection has any added advantage over hanging as a mode of execution of a death sentence. Hence, the argument advanced by the petitioner that lethal injection is a better and more humane mode of execution of the death sentence is totally unconvincing,” the bench said.SC said there had not been a single instance of a botched execution in India under the existing statutory framework, but there had been numerous botched ones in US, where lethal injection has been adopted in several states.“Before parting, we clarify that the dismissal of the present writ petition must not be understood as foreclosing future constitutional scrutiny, should compelling scientific, medical or empirical evidence emerge demonstrating that the factual and scientific basis on which the decision in Deena (supra) proceeded has been materially displaced by subsequent developments. Constitutional interpretation is organic and must remain responsive, both to the evolution of constitutional doctrine and to advances in scientific knowledge,” bench said.<\/p>\n

\n
\n

Share your thoughts in the comments<\/p>\n<\/div>\n