Conundrum of death: Hanging, confinement, and sentencing debate India won’t have

In India, the phrase "death sentence" can refer to three distinct scenarios: a hanging by the neck until death, permanent confinement in jail, or indefinite delay in the delivery of justice. This third option – a death sentence with no execution or release – is the one most commonly experienced by those who receive a death sentence in India.

The country's legal system has built an intricate framework around the first two forms of death penalty, yet it offers little guidance on the third, even though it is often the actual outcome for many individuals.

As of December 31, 2025, there were 33 cases pending before the Supreme Court, involving 46 individuals, with an average waiting period of 6.06 years. The high court had 312 cases pending with 478 people, averaging 2.99 years. The longest waiting period was 13.94 years, while the shortest was just 44 days. These varying durations of imprisonment create three distinct routes to the same end result: a life without return.

Lawmakers throughout the past half-century have debated which method is more humane and just, but they have not addressed the uncomfortable reality that a punishment guaranteeing death in custody might be more merciful than one that ends life in seconds or leaves it uncertain for years.

The question of whether to enforce a death sentence or not has been a recurring issue. Recently, a Fast Track Court in Uttar Pradesh passed 22 death sentences within four months, leading to widespread concerns over the judge's understanding of Indian jurisprudence on the death penalty. This prompted the jurisdictional court to transfer nearly 100 pending cases involving capital offenses.

Two weeks later, the Supreme Court had to acknowledge that a double murder trial had dragged on for 22 years, with the appeal sitting in the High Court for an additional 22 years, while the accused remained in custody throughout.

In response to these instances, the Supreme Court ultimately decided to send the matter back to the High Court, rather than granting bail on the grounds of a violation of the accused's right to a speedy trial. Despite this, the Supreme Court refused to refer Deena v. Union of India (1983) case to a larger bench, which had previously upheld hanging as a fair method of execution, citing no documented instances of botched executions in India.

The underlying assumption in all this jurisprudence is that the state's responsibility lies in ensuring a humane manner of death, while the prolonged dying process under life sentences or the lack of any sentence at all receives minimal scrutiny. Indian courts have thus quietly embraced slow death over instant death, without ever acknowledging it as such.

This sentencing philosophy – the "rarest of rare" cases – is subjective and relies on the collective conscience of judges, resulting in wildly different outcomes for offenders who committed similarly heinous crimes.