VIDEO EXPLAINER | 6 NOVEMBER 2026
What happened
As per the video, the question before the Supreme Court was not about the death penalty itself but about the method of execution. On 18 August 2026 the Court rejected the challenge to hanging. The status below is as of 5 Nov 2026, as per the video.
The case is Rishi Malhotra versus Union of India, and the petition was filed in 2017. The judgment was being delivered by Justice Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta.
The petitioners wanted lethal injection instead of hanging. They did not ask for the death penalty to be abolished. Their request was only that the method be changed.
The provision challenged
The challenge was to section 354 of the CrPC, which is now section 393 of the BNSS. The provision says that the convict is to be hanged until death.
The petitioners argued that dignity remains even in death, and so the benefit of Article 21 should be available to them.
What the Court and the Centre said
The Court said that no credible material of a botched execution in India had been placed before it.
The Centre’s position was that Article 21 does not demand the best method. It demands only a proper method, one that is not cruel and degrading.
Following the principle of stare decisis, the Court followed its earlier Deena judgment. In Deena, a bench of 3 judges had said that a sentence must not be executed in a cruel, barbarous or degrading manner. By this Deena test, hanging is treated as a constitutionally acceptable method.
The video also notes that at the end of 2025, 574 prisoners were on death row in India.
The wider background
The video places the case within a chain of judgments. In 1980, the Bachan Singh judgment upheld the death penalty, and the concept of the rarest of rare case comes from there.
In 1996, the Gian Kaur judgment said that Article 21 does not include the right to die.
In 2018, the Common Cause judgment treated the right to die with dignity as a fundamental right, and it also gave legal recognition to passive euthanasia and the living will.
So the line of thought is clear. Dignity matters under Article 21, but as per the video the method of hanging still passes the Deena test.
Constitutional / Legal / Institutional framework
- Article 21: the petitioners relied on dignity even in death; the Centre said it demands only a method that is not cruel and degrading.
- CrPC section 354 / BNSS section 393: the provision on hanging that was challenged.
- Deena: a 3-judge bench held that a sentence must not be executed in a cruel, barbarous or degrading manner; followed under stare decisis.
- Bachan Singh (1980) upheld the death penalty and gave the rarest of rare concept; Gian Kaur (1996) and Common Cause (2018) deal with the right to die.
CLAT angle
- Distinguish the two questions: death penalty (settled by Bachan Singh, 1980) and method of execution (this case).
- Case name and date: Rishi Malhotra versus Union of India; the challenge to hanging was rejected on 18 August 2026.
- Deena is the test: a sentence must not be executed in a cruel, barbarous or degrading manner. The Court followed it under stare decisis.
- Chain of cases: Bachan Singh 1980, Gian Kaur 1996, Common Cause 2018. Keep each year with its holding.
- Statistic: 574 prisoners on death row at the end of 2025, as per the video.
Key facts
| Fact | Detail |
|---|---|
| 18 August 2026 | Supreme Court rejects the challenge to hanging |
| Case | Rishi Malhotra versus Union of India; petition filed in 2017 |
| Provision | CrPC section 354, now BNSS section 393 |
| Petitioners’ ask | Lethal injection instead of hanging; not abolition of the death penalty |
| Precedent followed | Deena, a 3-judge bench; stare decisis |
| End of 2025 | 574 prisoners on death row |
| 1980 | Bachan Singh upholds the death penalty; rarest of rare |
| 1996 | Gian Kaur: Article 21 does not include the right to die |
| 2018 | Common Cause: right to die with dignity; passive euthanasia and living will recognised |
Mnemonic / memory hook
Remember: Method, not Penalty; Deena decides.
The question was how, not whether. Hanging was challenged; Deena says no cruel, barbarous or degrading manner; Bachan Singh 1980, Gian Kaur 1996, Common Cause 2018.
Why this matters for exams
This topic is a good example of how courts separate two questions. The question here was the method of execution, and not whether the death penalty should exist. Read an exam question carefully to see which of the two it is asking.
The second skill is linking precedents with their years. Bachan Singh is 1980, Gian Kaur is 1996 and Common Cause is 2018. Pair every case with its single holding and you can answer both year-based and holding-based questions.
Third, remember the test used by the Court. It followed Deena under stare decisis, and Deena says that a sentence must not be carried out in a cruel, barbarous or degrading manner.
Finally, keep the numbers straight: 18 August 2026 for the decision, 2017 for the petition, and 574 prisoners on death row at the end of 2025.
Source
This article summarises the video explainer and uses only what the video states. Status is as of 5 Nov 2026; check official court records for later changes.
Free in the CLAT Gurukul app
These notes (as a PDF lesson) and the 10-question CBT are in the app under Current Affairs → 6 Nov 2026. Get the app on Google Play or open app.clatgurukul.com.
Practice Quiz — 10 CLAT-Style Questions
Click an option to reveal the answer and explanation.
