Section 354(5) CrPC – Challenge Public Interest Litigation under Article 32 challenged constitutional validity of Section 354(5) CrPC / Section 393(5) BNSS prescribing hanging as sole method of execution. (Paras 1–2) Death penalty jurisprudence – Settled law Constitutionality of death penalty upheld in Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P. (1973) and Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980); “rarest of rare” doctrine governs imposition. (Paras 6)

  Supreme Court of India ruling in Rishi Malhotra v. Union of India (2026 INSC 873, decided 18 August 2026):

Headnotes 

1. Section 354(5) CrPC – Challenge Public Interest Litigation under Article 32 challenged constitutional validity of Section 354(5) CrPC / Section 393(5) BNSS prescribing hanging as sole method of execution. (Paras 1–2)

2. Death penalty jurisprudence – Settled law Constitutionality of death penalty upheld in Jagmohan Singh v. State of U.P. (1973) and Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980); “rarest of rare” doctrine governs imposition. (Paras 6)

3. Mode of execution – Subject to Article 21 While death penalty itself is constitutional, method of execution must conform to Article 21 — just, fair, reasonable, and consistent with dignity. (Paras 7, 21)

4. Historical background – Hanging retained Hanging introduced in colonial CrPC (1861), retained in Codes of 1882, 1898, CrPC 1973, and BNSS 2023; unchanged across 150 years. (Paras 10–12)

5. Law Commission Reports – Concerns noted 35th Report (1967) and 187th Report (2003) acknowledged hanging causes intense suffering; recommended exploration of humane alternatives like lethal injection. (Paras 16, 19)

6. Deena v. Union of India – Precedent Three‑Judge Bench upheld hanging as constitutional in Deena (1983), relying on government submissions; stood as binding precedent for four decades. (Para 17)

7. Petitioner’s submissions – Inhumanity of hanging Argued hanging is barbaric, causes intense pain, margin of error leads to strangulation or decapitation; violates Article 21 dignity and Article 14 equality. (Paras 26–31)

8. Project 39A submissions – Scientific evidence Cited medical studies and exhumation reports showing hanging often causes asphyxiation, trauma, humiliation; not quick or painless; violates dignity. (Paras 33–35)

9. International norms – ECOSOC safeguards UN ECOSOC Safeguard No. 9 requires minimum suffering in executions; hanging inconsistent with global standards. (Para 29)

10. Alternative methods – Lethal injection debate Law Commission 2003 recommended lethal injection; submissions highlighted risks of botched executions in US; urged scrutiny before adoption. (Paras 36–37)

11. Union of India – Separation of powers Attorney General opposed petition; argued prescribing method of execution is legislative function; Court cannot direct Parliament to adopt alternatives. (Para 38)

This case is pivotal because it reopened constitutional scrutiny of hanging as the sole method of execution in India, situating the debate within Article 21’s guarantee of dignity and evolving human rights standards, while leaving the larger question of alternatives to legislative determination.