Supreme Court: Award Valid Even If Passed After Mandate Expiry When Court Extends Time || Jharkhand HC: Regular Bail Plea During Interim Bail is Not Maintainable under Section 483 BNSS || Cal HC: Theft Claims and Public Humiliation Alone Don’t Amount To Abetment of Suicide U/S 306 IPC || Delhi High Court: Elective Surgery Does Not Bar Grant of Interim Bail on Medical Grounds || Delhi HC: Consensual Romance With Minor Nearing 18 May be Considered For Bail in POCSO Case || Delhi HC: Not Named In FIR Doesn’t Matter If Financial Links Show Active Role in NDPS Offence || Chhattisgarh HC: Rape is an Affront to Womanhood and a Brutal Violation of The Right To Life || Supreme Court: Single Insolvency Petition Maintainable Against Linked Corporate Entities || Supreme Court: Disputes are Not Arbitrable When the Arbitration Agreement is Alleged to be Forged || Supreme Court: Temple Trust Does Not Qualify as an ‘Industry’ under the Industrial Disputes 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 :