SC: General Reference to a Tender’s Arbitration Clause Does Not Incorporate it into a Contract || Supreme Court: Partnership Veil May be Lifted to Detect Illegal Sub-Letting Arrangements || Supreme Court: Lower Dearness Relief For Pensioners than Employees' DA is Arbitrary under Article 14 || Supreme Court: NCLT Should Not Assess Merits of Pre-Existing Dispute in Section 9 Applications || Supreme Court Clarifies that the Right to Vote is Not a Fundamental Right But a Statutory Right || Chhattisgarh High Court: Minor’s Voluntary Elopement With a Lover Does Not Constitute Kidnapping || Bombay HC: Staring at Co-Worker’s Chest is Morally Wrong But Does Not Amount to Voyeurism under IPC || Delhi HC: Loss of Confidence in Employees Entrusted With Funds is Valid Ground For Termination || Allahabad High Court: Gram Nyayalaya Has Jurisdiction to Decide Maintenance and Execution Petitions || J&K&L HC: Non-Publication of Sec 4(1) Notice in Gazette and Local Newspapers Vitiates Acquisition

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 :