The constitutionality of a punishment and the method of carrying it out are separate questions. The dismissal of a challenge does not show that a new scientific basis will never be worth considering in future.
Why in the News
On 18 August 2026, in Rishi Malhotra and Others v. Union of India, the Supreme Court dismissed a petition challenging the method of hanging. A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta gave the decision with reference to section 354(5) of the CrPC, now section 393(5) of the BNSS. The bench did not find a sufficient basis to refer the matter to a larger bench for reconsideration of the earlier larger-bench decision, but it did not close the route of review on concrete scientific or medical evidence in future.
Key Facts
Binding precedent: a three-judge bench had accepted the validity of the method of hanging in Deena v. Union of India. The present two-judge bench stressed judicial discipline and the importance of the larger bench's decision.
The limit of the material presented: on the available record, the court did not find sufficient scientific proof that an alternative method is more humane or that it changes the basis of the earlier decision. This is not a scientific certificate that any method is completely painless in every circumstance.
The possibility of the future: according to the decision, if concrete new scientific, medical or empirical evidence changes the earlier factual basis, constitutional review in future is not barred. The Centre can, if it wishes, also undertake a broad policy review through experts.
How Do Dignity and Judicial Stability Go Together?
The protection of Article 21: the court clarified that the constitutional importance of human dignity does not end for a person sentenced to death. Even the use of the state's statutory power must remain within constitutional safeguards.
The value of stability: a smaller bench taking a different path from a larger bench's decision on the basis of disagreement can affect the consistency of the judicial system. A proper process and a sufficient basis are essential for reconsideration.
The importance of expertise: on questions related to medicine, science and prison administration, reliable comparative evidence is needed. The popular perception of an alternative is not proof of its being better.
Analysis and Way Forward
In constitutional consideration, dignity, the aim of reducing unnecessary suffering and the fairness of the process must be kept together. The assessment of scientific evidence should be transparent and systematic; do not adopt other countries' procedures cut from their context. There is also a difference between a Law Commission recommendation and a law in force. In the present decision, the permission for expert review should not be treated as an announcement that a committee has been formed, that review is mandatory or that a new method has been accepted. Similarly, keeping future review open does not mean the existing provision stands repealed. In study notes, write the judicial conclusion, the parties' arguments and the policy possibility separately.
Difference in Concepts
Permission to consider an alternative, an order to adopt it and the annulment of the current law are different outcomes. In this decision the petition has been dismissed.
Mains View
In GS-II: fundamental rights, precedent and the separation of powers. In the answer, make clear the possibility of limited future review along with the present conclusion.
Answer Outline: Article 21 and the process of punishment; the larger bench's precedent; sufficient scientific proof; the roles of the judiciary, expert review and the legislature.
Sources
- Original Supreme Court judgment: Rishi Malhotra, 2026 INSC 873, especially paragraphs 63-66
- An independent legal summary of the decision and details of the bench
Remember: the petition was dismissed; there is no complete bar on future review or policy study on a new concrete scientific basis.