Supreme Court Revisits Death Penalty Case Under Article 32

Latest Update After Manoj Judgment – March 2025

The Supreme Court of India is currently hearing a critical legal issue that could potentially redefine the jurisprudence surrounding Article 32 of the Constitution, especially in the context of death penalty cases.

The matter concerns Vasanta Sampat Dupare, who was awarded the death sentence for the heinous rape and murder of a 4-year-old girl. His conviction and sentence were upheld by a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court on November 26, 2014, and a review petition was subsequently dismissed on May 3, 2017. Mercy petitions filed before the Governor and the President were also rejected in 2022 and 2023, respectively. Following this, a writ petition under Article 32 was filed before the Supreme Court.

In Manoj & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022), a three-judge bench led by Justice U.U. Lalit laid down essential procedural guidelines for death penalty cases. The Court directed that mitigating circumstances must be thoroughly investigated and recorded at the trial stage, including a psychiatric and psychological evaluation of the accused.

These directions aim to ensure that all relevant humanizing factors—such as the background, mental health, family circumstances, and prison conduct of the convict—are considered before deciding on capital punishment.

Senior Advocate Gopal Shankaranarayan, appearing for the convict, submitted that the Manoj judgment should apply retrospectively, particularly since Dupare has now spent 17 years in custody. He emphasized that the benefit of modern sentencing standards, which demand a holistic understanding of a convict's mental and social circumstances, was unavailable at the time of Dupare’s sentencing.

Relying on landmark judgments such as Shatrughan Chauhan (2014) and Mohd Arif (2014), Shankaranarayan argued that Article 32 petitions have previously been entertained even after a death sentence has attained finality. These cases dealt with procedural irregularities and delay in mercy petitions, as well as the need for open court hearings in review petitions concerning death penalties.

He also referred to data from Project 39A, NLUD, pointing out that there are currently seven individuals on death row post-Manoj, none of whom had the benefit of psychiatric evaluation at the time of sentencing.

Advocate General of Maharashtra, Dr. Birendra Saraf, strongly opposed the maintainability of the writ petition. He argued that once the Supreme Court has passed a final judgment, the only remedy available is through a curative petition, not by invoking Article 32 to reopen the case.

The bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta, expressed concern over the implications of revisiting settled judgments via Article 32. Justice Nath observed,  

“It is a dangerous proposition that any judgment or matter closed, but Article 32 can come and open up that case.”

“Are our hands not tied under Article 32 in light of earlier decisions?”

The matter is now posted for further hearing next Thursday, where the petitioner’s counsel has been asked to clarify why a writ petition under Article 32 should be considered maintainable in such a scenario.

As a lawyer deeply involved in the field of justice and constitutional rights, I believe this case opens up critical discussions on the rights of convicts, the evolving standards of sentencing, and the limits of judicial review under Article 32.

Whether or not the Supreme Court ultimately allows this writ petition, the fact that it is considering the retroactive application of procedural safeguards laid down in Manoj is itself a landmark moment. The case also underscores the importance of humane considerations even in the most serious criminal matters, including death penalty cases.

Posted byPankaj Kumar & Co | Akanksha Roy Advocate | Law Firm

Specialist in Divorce, Civil, Criminal, Matrimonial laws

Practicing at Rohini Court, Tis Hazari Court, Dwarka Court , Patiala ouse court, Karkardoma Court, Saket Court and Delhi High Court  

📞 Contact:   8800454947