1. Public interest petition challenging the inhumanity of execution by hanging and the requirement for the body to remain suspended for thirty minutes under jail manuals. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1995 Supreme(SC) 127
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BEFORE KULDIP SINGH AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.
PT. PARMANAND KATARA, ADVOCATE
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER.
Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 827 of 1991
Decided on 19-1-1995
Important Points
The right to dignity and fair treatment under Article 21 of the Constitution of India extends to the body of the condemned prisoner after death, and the method of execution by hanging is not in violation of Article 21.
Subject
Criminal Law - Death Penalty
Act Referred
Headnote
Death Sentence - Execution Method - Right to Dignity and Fair Treatment
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the method of execution of death sentence by hanging as inhuman and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He also raised concerns about the treatment of the body of the condemned convict after execution.
Finding of the Court:
The court disagreed with the petitioner's contention regarding the method of execution, citing previous judgments. However, it held that the right to dignity and fair treatment under Article 21 extends to the body of the condemned prisoner after death.
Issues: Method of execution of death sentence, treatment of the body of the condemned convict
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the method of execution by hanging is not in violation of Article 21, but emphasized that the right to dignity and fair treatment extends to the body of the condemned prisoner after death. It held that the requirement for the body to remain suspended for half an hour is only a guideline and not mandatory.
Final Decision: The court directed that the body of any condemned prisoner shall not remain suspended after the medical officer declares the person to be dead, and that the limitation of half an hour mentioned in the manual is only a guideline. The petition was disposed of accordingly with no costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether execution by hanging is inhuman and whether requiring a dead body to remain suspended for thirty minutes violates the right to dignity under Article 21. (Para 1 )
3. The right to dignity under Article 21 extends to the body after death; time limits for suspension are directory guidelines rather than mandatory requirements. (Para 3 )
4. The right to dignity under Article 21 applies to a dead body, necessitating its release immediately upon medical certification of death. (Para 3 )
5. Petition disposed of with directions that the body of a condemned prisoner must be released immediately after a medical officer declares death. (Para 3 )
6. Does the right to dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India apply to a person after death?
Yes, the right to dignity and fair treatment under Article 21 is available not only to a living person but also to their body after death. (Para 3 )
7. Is the requirement for a condemned prisoner's body to remain suspended for a specific duration mandatory?
No, such time limitations are directory and serve as guidelines. The mandatory requirement is that the body be released as soon as a medical officer declares the person dead. (Para 3 )
8. Is the method of execution by hanging considered inhuman and violative of Article 21?
No, the court held that the method of execution by hanging is not inhuman or violative of Article 21, following established judicial precedents. (Para 2 )
ORDER
1. This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, in public interest, has been filed by Pandit Parmanand Katara, Advocate. Appearing inperson he has raised two contentions before us. According to him the method of execution of death sentence by hanging under the Punjab Jail Manual (the Manual) is inhuman and as such is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The second contention raised by the petitioner is that under para 873 of the Manual, body of the condemned convict, after it falls from the scaffolds is required to remain suspended for a period of half an hour. According to him right to dignity and fair treatment continues in respect of the dead body of the condemned man.
2. The first contention raised by the petitioner has been concluded against him by the judgment of this Court in Deena v. Union of India {(1983) 4 SCC 645 Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab {(1980) 2 SCC 684 } and Jumman Khan v. State of U.P. {(1991) 1 SCC 752 } Therefore, as at present advised, we do not agree with the first contention of the petitioner.
3. The second contention of the petitioner is based on para 873 of the Manual which is as under:
"873. Body to remain suspended half an hour. Return of warrant.- (1) The body shall remain suspended for half an hour and shall not be taken down till the medical officer declares life extinct.
(2) The Superintendent shall return the warrant of execution with an endorsement to the effect that the sentence has been carried out."
We agree with the petitioner that right to dignity and fair treatment under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is not only available to a living man but also to his body after his death. According to us, the only requirement of the above-quoted para of the Manual is that the body of the condemned prisoner shall only remain suspended till the time the medical officer, present on the spot, declares him dead. We make it clear and hold that the jail authorities in the country shall not keep the body of any condemned prisoner suspended after the medical officer has declared the person to be dead. The limitation of half an hour mentioned in para 873 is directory and is only a guideline. The only mandatory part of the above-quoted para is that the condemned person has to be declared dead by the medical officer and as soon as it is done the body has to be released from the rope. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
For Citation: (1995) 3 SCC 248
