SC: Menstrual Health is a Fundamental Right under Article 21; Orders Free Sanitary Pads in Schools || Supreme Court: Industrial Court is the Proper Forum to Decide Issues Relating to Contract Labour || Supreme Court: Only Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction Can Extend Arbitral Tribunal’s Mandate || SC: Demolition of Private Property Must Rest on Clear Statutory Grounds and Due Consideration || SC: After Complaint Was Withdrawn, BCI Disciplinary Committee Could Not Penalise Advocate || MP HC: Decree Holder Cannot Defeat Compromise or Initiate Execution by Refusing Debtor’s Cheque || MP HC: Spouse’s Income Cannot Be Clubbed With Public Servant’s for Disproportionate Assets Case || Ker HC: Bar Association is Not Employer & Cannot Form Internal Complaints Committee under POSH Act || SC: Ex-Contract Workers Must Be Preferred When Employers Replace Contract Labour With Regular Staff || SC: Waqf Tribunals Cannot Hear Claims over Properties Not Listed or Registered under Waqf Act

Glossip et al. v. Gross et al - (29 Jun 2015)

Use of midazolam does not violate Eighth Amendment of Constitution

Criminal

Hearing a petition against the use of midazolam by the State of Oklahoma in carrying out the death penalty, the United States Supreme Court held that the Petitioners had failed to establish that its use would create a demonstrated risk of severe pain. It added, Oklahoma did not have access to alternatives, and the Petitioners themselves had failed to suggest a more appropriate substitute. Midazolam is the first of three drugs used in carrying out executions by lethal injection. It came to be used by State authorities after previous drugs, like sodium thiopental, used to induce a state of unconsciousness in the inmate were prevented from being used in executions.

Tags : DEATH ROW EXECUTION MIDAZOLAM

Share :