New Delhi: The Central Government has informed the Supreme Court that it is considering forming an expert committee to determine whether the execution of the death penalty by hanging is proportionate and whether there are better-suited alternatives available. This comes after a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Advocate Rishi Malhotra, seeking to abolish the current practice of executing a death row convict by hanging and to replace it with lethal injection, shooting, electrocution, or gas chamber, which would take only a few minutes.
During the previous hearing, the Supreme Court had asked Attorney General R Venkataramani to find out data on the impact of death by hanging, the pain caused, the period taken for such death to take place, and the availability of resources to effectuate such hanging. The AG, however, informed the bench that a proposal for the formation of an expert committee has been recommended. The committee will decide whether there are better alternatives to execute the death penalty. He also added that the government had been considering the members for the said expert committee.
The PIL filed by Advocate Rishi Malhotra raises concerns about the constitutionality and humaneness of the current practice of executing a death row convict by hanging. The petition argued that this method is barbaric, inhumane, and cruel and that there are other, more humane, and less painful methods available, such as lethal injection, shooting, electrocution, or gas chamber. Malhotra argues that the execution as contemplated under Section 354(5) of CrPC (hung by the neck till the person is dead) is not only barbaric but also against resolutions of United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) that said that capital punishment should be carried out in such a manner that it inflicts minimum possible suffering".
The petition further argues that the right to die by a dignified procedure of death is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It claims that the current method of execution is not only cruel and inhumane but also discriminatory and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.
The issue of capital punishment has been a contentious one in India, with many arguing that the death penalty violates human rights and is a cruel and inhumane practice. The debate has intensified in recent years, with several high-profile cases bringing the issue to the forefront of public discourse.
One of the main arguments against the death penalty is that it is irreversible and that there is always a risk of executing an innocent person. In addition, there is the issue of the psychological impact of executing someone, both on the prisoner and on the executioners themselves.
However, proponents of the death penalty argue that it is a necessary tool for maintaining law and order and for ensuring that justice is served in cases of heinous crimes. They argue that the death penalty acts as a deterrent and that it is necessary to protect society from dangerous criminals.
The issue of whether to abolish the death penalty or to find more humane methods of execution is a complex one, with no easy answers. However, the fact that the Indian government is considering forming an expert committee to examine the issue is a positive step towards finding a solution that is both just and humane. It is hoped that the committee will take a comprehensive and evidence-based approach to the issue and will consider all of the relevant factors, including the impact on the prisoner, the psychological impact on the executioners, and the impact on society as a whole.
Centre mulling to form expert committee to find better alternatives for executing the death penalty
The Central Government submitted to SC on Tuesday informed the Supreme Court that it was considering forming an expert committee to determine if the execution of death penalty through hanging was proportionate and if there were other better suited alternatives for executing the death penalty
New Delhi: The Central Government has informed the Supreme Court that it is considering forming an expert committee to determine whether the execution of the death penalty by hanging is proportionate and whether there are better-suited alternatives available. This comes after a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Advocate Rishi Malhotra, seeking to abolish the current practice of executing a death row convict by hanging and to replace it with lethal injection, shooting, electrocution, or gas chamber, which would take only a few minutes.
During the previous hearing, the Supreme Court had asked Attorney General R Venkataramani to find out data on the impact of death by hanging, the pain caused, the period taken for such death to take place, and the availability of resources to effectuate such hanging. The AG, however, informed the bench that a proposal for the formation of an expert committee has been recommended. The committee will decide whether there are better alternatives to execute the death penalty. He also added that the government had been considering the members for the said expert committee.
The PIL filed by Advocate Rishi Malhotra raises concerns about the constitutionality and humaneness of the current practice of executing a death row convict by hanging. The petition argued that this method is barbaric, inhumane, and cruel and that there are other, more humane, and less painful methods available, such as lethal injection, shooting, electrocution, or gas chamber. Malhotra argues that the execution as contemplated under Section 354(5) of CrPC (hung by the neck till the person is dead) is not only barbaric but also against resolutions of United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) that said that capital punishment should be carried out in such a manner that it inflicts minimum possible suffering".
The petition further argues that the right to die by a dignified procedure of death is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It claims that the current method of execution is not only cruel and inhumane but also discriminatory and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.
The issue of capital punishment has been a contentious one in India, with many arguing that the death penalty violates human rights and is a cruel and inhumane practice. The debate has intensified in recent years, with several high-profile cases bringing the issue to the forefront of public discourse.
One of the main arguments against the death penalty is that it is irreversible and that there is always a risk of executing an innocent person. In addition, there is the issue of the psychological impact of executing someone, both on the prisoner and on the executioners themselves.
However, proponents of the death penalty argue that it is a necessary tool for maintaining law and order and for ensuring that justice is served in cases of heinous crimes. They argue that the death penalty acts as a deterrent and that it is necessary to protect society from dangerous criminals.
The issue of whether to abolish the death penalty or to find more humane methods of execution is a complex one, with no easy answers. However, the fact that the Indian government is considering forming an expert committee to examine the issue is a positive step towards finding a solution that is both just and humane. It is hoped that the committee will take a comprehensive and evidence-based approach to the issue and will consider all of the relevant factors, including the impact on the prisoner, the psychological impact on the executioners, and the impact on society as a whole.
TAGGED:
Death by hanging
