Deena v. Union of India
Supreme Court of India, 23 September 1983, 3 judges, 1983 AIR 1155; 1984 SCR (1) 1; 1983 SCC (4) 645
The method of executing a death sentence prescribed by Section 354(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hanging by the neck till death, does not violate Article 21; the writ petitions were dismissed.
Facts
The petitioners had been sentenced to death for murder under Section 302 of the Penal Code. Their special leave petitions, appeals, review petitions and mercy petitions had been dismissed. In writ petitions under Article 32 they challenged Section 354(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which directs that a person sentenced to death be hanged by the neck till he is dead, on the ground that hanging by rope is a cruel and barbarous method of execution that violates Article 21. A special leave petition from the Allahabad High Court was heard with them. The Solicitor General objected that the question was concluded by the Constitution Bench decision in Bachan Singh. The Court rejected that objection, holding that the validity of Section 354(5) had been neither squarely raised nor directly considered there, and examined the question on its merits.
Questions before the Court
- Was the challenge to Section 354(5) concluded by Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab?
- In a challenge under Article 21, on whom does the burden of proof lie?
- Does execution of the death sentence by hanging, as prescribed by Section 354(5), violate Article 21?
What the Court held
- The preliminary objection was rejected: the validity of Section 354(5) was not directly and substantially in issue in Bachan Singh, which referred to the mode of execution only incidentally, so the question was open.
- Per Chandrachud, C.J. (with Pathak, J.): in cases under Article 21, if it appears that a person is being deprived of life or liberty, the burden rests on the State to establish the constitutional validity of the law. Mukharji, J. agreed only that the State must prove deprivation according to procedure established by law.
- By what method the death sentence is executed is a matter of policy for the legislature, but whether the method chosen conforms to the Constitution is for the Courts to decide and is a legitimate part of the judicial function.
- On the material before it, the State had discharged its burden: hanging is quick and certain, unconsciousness supervenes almost instantaneously, and it involves no barbarity, torture or degradation. Section 354(5) does not violate Article 21.
- Article 21 does not bar execution of a lawfully imposed death sentence; its mandate is that the sentence shall not be executed in a cruel, barbarous or degrading manner. The writ petitions and the special leave petition were dismissed.
Why it matters
The judgment upholds hanging as the mode of executing the death sentence under Article 21. Per Chandrachud, C.J. and Pathak, J., the rule placing the burden on the challenger of a statute applies to Article 14 cases but not to those under Articles 19 and 21, where the State must justify a law depriving a person of life or liberty, and they read Bachan Singh as authority for that. It also states that steps incidental to execution must not amount to further punishment.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“Having given our most anxious consideration to the central point of inquiry, we have come to the conclusion that, on the basis of the material to which we have referred extensively, the State has discharged the heavy burden which lies upon it to prove that the method of hanging prescribed by section 354(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not violate the guarantee contained in Article 21 of the Constitution.”
“Thus, Bachan Singh is an authority for proposition that in cases arising under Article 21 of the Constitution, if it appears that a person is being deprived of his life or has been deprived of his personal liberty, the burden rests on the State to establish the constitutional validity of the impugned law.”
“Article 21, undoubtedly, has as much relevance on the passing of a sentence, as on the manner of executing it. Therefore, a two-fold consideration has to be kept in mind in the area of sentencing. Substantively, the sentence has to meet the constitutional prescription contained, especially, in Articles 14 and 21. Procedurally, the method by which the sentence is required by law to be executed has to meet the mandate of Article 21. The mandate of Article 21 is not that the death sentence shall not be executed but that it shall not be executed in a cruel, barbarous or degrading manner.”
“It is for the Courts to decide upon the constitutionality of the method prescribed by the legislature for implementing or executing a sentence. Whether that method conforms to the dictates of the Constitution is a matter not only subject to judicial review but it constitutes a legitimate part of the judicial function.”
Provisions interpreted
- Section 354(5), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Now: BNSS 393 (NCRB correspondence table)
- Article 21, Constitution
- Article 14, Constitution
- Article 19, Constitution
Related judgments
- Explains Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980)“Bachan Singh is an authority for proposition that in cases arising under Article 21 of the Constitution” (page 23)
- Explains Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab (1983)“Evidently, the judgment does not enlarge the scope of the rule in Bachan Singh by broadening the narrow field of cases which call for the death sentence.” (page 9)
Case and bench
- Parties
- Deena @ Deena Dayal etc. etc. v. Union of India
- Case
- Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 503 of 1983 and connected Writ Petitions, with Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 196 of 1983
- Decided
- 23 September 1983
- Bench
- Chandrachud, Y.V. (CJ), Pathak, R.S., Mukharji, Sabyasachi
- Opinions
- Unanimous on the result. Judgment of the Court delivered by Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J.; Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. agreed but reserved his opinion on whether the State always bears the further initial burden of proving that the procedure is just, fair and reasonable.
Questions on this case
2 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. A few from free papers:
Question 1, Legal Current Affairs: August 2026
In Rishi Malhotra v. Union of India, decided on 18 August 2026, a writ petition challenged Section 354(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 393(5) of the BNSS) insofar as it makes hanging the only method of executing a death sentence. The Supreme Court:
- A. referred the validity of the provision to a Constitution Bench, since Deena v. Union of India had been decided by three Judges
- B. dismissed the petition, finding no reason to refer the three-Judge Bench decision in Deena v. Union of India to a larger Bench
- C. struck down the provision as violative of Article 21 and directed that lethal injection be adopted as the method of execution
- D. read down the provision so that the condemned prisoner may choose between hanging and lethal injection before the execution
Show the answer
B. dismissed the petition, finding no reason to refer the three-Judge Bench decision in Deena v. Union of India to a larger Bench
In 2026 INSC 873 (Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.) the Court held that no material had been placed to doubt the three-Judge Bench decision in Deena v. Union of India (1983) 4 SCC 645, which had upheld hanging. It declined a reference to a larger Bench and dismissed the petition, adding that future scrutiny is not foreclosed if compelling scientific evidence emerges.