No Evidence Lethal Injection Is More Humane Than Hanging For Death Sentence: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court recently observed that there is no concrete scientific material before it to establish that lethal injection (administering drugs intravenously to cause death) is a demonstrably superior or more humane method of executing a death sentence than hanging.
“The available material, therefore, 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 Court said.
A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta made the observation while dismissing a plea seeking to strike down the statutory prescription of hanging as the mode of execution of death sentences.
The petitioner, Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra, argued that intravenous lethal injection was a more scientific, humane and painless method of execution. However, the Court said this submission was not supported by sufficient scientific or empirical material.
Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora for Project 39A, NLU Delhi placed material before the Court highlighting the uncertainties and inconsistencies associated with lethal injection. She also referred to the high rate of botched executions in USA. She highlighted that the book Gruesome Spectacles: Botched Executions and America's Death Penalty recorded approximately 276 botched executions out of approximately 9,000 executions between 1890 and 2010, a rate of about three percent.
Arora also referred to the three-drug protocol commonly used for lethal injection. According to the material placed by Project 39A, the protocol comprises a barbiturate to induce unconsciousness, a paralytic agent to stop muscle movement and potassium chloride to stop the heart.
Arora submitted that the protocol creates a particular risk if the first drug fails to render the prisoner fully unconscious. The paralytic drug can prevent outward physical manifestations of suffering, meaning that a prisoner could potentially experience severe pain while appearing externally calm, she submitted.
One recent example cited was the February 2024 execution attempt of Thomas Creech in Idaho. The execution team failed eight times to insert a functioning intravenous catheter. After about two hours of attempts, the execution was called off and Creech was returned to his cell.
Attorney General R Venkataramani submitted that the US experience could not establish lethal injection as a humane or reliable alternative. He pointed to difficulties relating to venous access, shortages of the drugs required for lethal injection, use of untested protocols and documented instances of botched executions.
The Supreme Court found merit in the Attorney General's submission that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate even a single instance of a botched execution in India under the existing statutory framework. At the same time, the Court noted that the material placed by Project 39A showed 'numerous botched executions' in the United States.
The Court also noted that the United States Supreme Court in Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (2008), had held that lethal injection did not guarantee a painless death.
The Court observed that Malhotra's argument that hanging was physically painful and psychologically traumatic was not supported by unimpeachable scientific or empirical evidence.
“The material relied upon by the impleader (Project 39A) serves to underscore the inherent complexities and practical difficulties associated with lethal injection and reinforces the necessity of subjecting any proposed alternative method of execution to rigorous constitutional scrutiny before its adoption. Consequently, there is no concrete scientific material on record to satisfy the Court that execution by lethal injection is demonstrably superior or more humane method of carrying out a sentence of death.,” the Court held.
The Court further noted that the issue was not being considered for the first time. In Deena v. Union of India (1983), a three-Judge Bench had examined different methods of execution, including electrocution, lethal gas, shooting and lethal injection, and concluded that none had any “distinct or demonstrable advantage” over hanging.
In Deena, the Supreme Court had examined lethal injection through the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment's discussion of the method. The Commission had noted that lethal injection required intravenous administration, which was a delicate and skilled procedure. Prison medical officers interviewed by the Commission had doubted whether it was more humane than hanging.
The British Medical Association had also opposed involving medical practitioners in executions. The Royal Commission ultimately said it could not recommend substituting lethal injection for hanging because it was not satisfied that lethal injection would bring about death more quickly, painlessly and decently in all cases. It nevertheless recommended that the question be periodically reconsidered in light of advances in the science of anaesthetics.
The Court in the Deena case concluded that electrocution, lethal gas, shooting and lethal injection did not have any distinct or demonstrable advantage over hanging.
Case: Rishi Malhotra v. Union of India, W.P.(Crl.) No. 145/2017
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 823