The Centre had told the Supreme Court that executing a death row convict by hanging was the most viable method.
What was the petition?
A PIL had sought quashing of section 354(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code which specifies execution by hanging.
The plea had referred to a Report of the Law Commission advocating removal of the present mode of execution from the statute.
It has also referred to Article 21 (Right to Life) of the Constitution.
It stressed that Art 21 included the right of a condemned prisoner to have a dignified mode of execution so that death becomes less painful.
This means the right to a dignified life up to the point of death including a dignified procedure of death.
The PIL had also listed intravenous lethal injection, shooting, electrocution or gas chamber as other viable options in which death is just a matter of minutes.
It noted that the present practice of executing a death row convict by hanging involves prolonged pain and suffering.
Notably, in hanging, the entire execution process takes over 40 minutes to declare a prisoner dead.
What was the SC's directive?
The Supreme Court had earlier adjourned the plea seeking abolition of executing a death row convict by hanging.
The SC had further urged the parliament to consider amending the Criminal Procedure Code to change the mode of execution to make death less painful.
It also asked the Centre to appraise it about the various modes of executing death row prisoners prevalent in other countries.
The court also made it clear that it is not questioning the constitutionality of death penalty but only the mode of execution.
What is the Centre's response?
The Centre has said that there is no viable method at present other than hanging to execute condemned prisoners.
It noted that they had tested lethal injections, but it was not workable as there are instances of it failing.
