New Delhi, Jan. 23 -- The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned whether it falls within the domain of a constitutional court to decide if a less painful and more humane method of execution could replace hanging, even as the Union government told the court that the issue is under active consideration by a committee constituted at the highest level. A bench of justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta acknowledged that the death penalty has consequences not only for the condemned prisoner but also for those tasked with carrying it out, including the hangman, but expressed reservations about whether the judiciary could direct the executive to alter the statutorily prescribed mode of execution. "The question is who should decide all this," observed the bench during the hearing, even as it noted the psychological impact on the person executing the sentence and those witnessing it. The court was hearing a petition filed by senior advocate Rishi Malhotra, appearing in person, challenging the constitutionality of execution by hanging under Section 354(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, now reflected in Section 393(5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which mandates that a death sentence be carried out by hanging. Arguing that hanging is an archaic and painful method of execution, Malhotra submitted that the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the right to life with dignity under Article 21 also encompasses the right to die with dignity. "Lethal injection is more dignified and less painful. Like in the Arms Act and the Air Force Act, a condemned prisoner should be given a choice," Malhotra told the bench, relying on Law Commission reports and past judgments of the Supreme Court. When Malhotra urged the court to either quash or read down the statutory provision prescribing hanging, the bench flagged the central legal issue: "Whether this court can direct the government to frame a policy? That is the legal question before this court." The bench asked Malhotra to file detailed written submissions, indicating that the matter raises complex constitutional and institutional questions. Senior advocate Meenakshi Arora, appearing for intervenor Project 39A -- a criminal justice research and legal aid programme at National Law University, Delhi, cautioned against a simplistic substitution of hanging with lethal injection. Arora told the court that Project 39A had placed studies and reports from the United States on record highlighting numerous instances of botched lethal injections, and urged that the committee examining the issue undertake a deeper study before any policy decision is taken. When the bench asked whether the intervenor's position was to do away with the death penalty altogether, Arora clarified that the immediate submission was limited to seeking further deliberation and discussion on methods of execution. Attorney General R Venkataramani, appearing for the Union government, informed the court that the issue of alternative methods of execution was being examined "at the highest level" and that a committee had already been constituted. "The government is examining it. The committee is also examining it. Let parties give their suggestions and we will consider them as well," said the attorney general, adding that if the government felt the need to return to court after completing the exercise, it would do so. Recording the submissions, the bench directed all parties to file their written submissions within three weeks. The issue has been under the Supreme Court's consideration since 2017 when Malhotra moved the plea. In November 2025, the Centre had told the same bench that it was examining whether a less painful and more humane method of execution could replace hanging, though no final decision had been taken. At the time, Venkataramani had said deliberations were ongoing and there was "no urgency", pointing out that no executions were scheduled. Accepting the request, the court had adjourned the matter. Malhotra's petition argues that execution by hanging amounts to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, violating the right to life with dignity under Article 21. Relying on international practices and the 187th Law Commission report, he has contended that the state's power to deprive life must be exercised in a manner that causes the least possible pain. The petition also points out that more than 40 countries have moved away from hanging to lethal injection or other methods considered less torturous, and calls upon the court to either direct the adoption of a humane alternative or, at the very least, grant condemned prisoners a choice in the mode of execution....