The Suprenme Court held that an Article 32 petition is maintainable in matters involving the death penalty where the sentencing stage has not been conducted in compliance with procedural safeguards. The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by a death row convict challenging his sentence, and it observed that failure to follow the guidelines laid down in Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh would amount to a violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
The case concerned Vasanta Sampat Dupare, convicted for the rape and murder of a four-year-old girl. An Additional Sessions Judge in Nagpur awarded him the death sentence, which was subsequently upheld by the Bombay High Court. In November 2014, a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court confirmed the sentence, and a review petition filed by Dupare was dismissed in May 2017. His mercy petitions before the Governor and the President were also rejected in 2022 and 2023, respectively. Thereafter, Dupare approached the Supreme Court under Article 32.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Dupare, argued that the sentencing process was vitiated as the principles laid down in Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh were not followed. He emphasized that mitigating circumstances and a proper psychiatric and psychological evaluation of the accused were not considered, thereby depriving the petitioner of a fair and individualized sentencing process.
Opposing the plea, Maharashtra’s Advocate General Dr. Birendra Saraf contended that an Article 32 petition could not be used to reopen a matter already adjudicated by the Supreme Court. He maintained that Dupare’s only recourse was to file a curative petition.
A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, and Justice Sandeep Mehta examined whether Article 32 could be invoked to reopen the sentencing stage in capital punishment cases. The Court held, “The writ petition is allowed. Therefore, we hold that Article 32 of the Constitution empowers this Court in cases related to capital punishment to reopen the sentencing stage where the accused has been condemned to death penalty without ensuring that the guidelines mandated in Manoj were followed. This corrective power is invoked precisely to compel rigorous application of the safeguards laid down in Manoj judgment in such cases, thereby ensuring that the condemned person is not deprived of the fundamental rights to equal treatment, individualized sentencing and fair procedure that Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution secure to every person.”
At the same time, the Bench issued a cautionary note, “Article 32 of the Constitution is the bedrock of constitutional remedies but its exceptional scope cannot be permitted to become a routine pathway for reopening concluded matters. Reopening will be reserved for only those cases where there is a clear, specific breach of the new procedural safeguards, as these breaches are so serious that if left uncorrected, they would undermine the accused person’s basic rights like dignity and fair process".
While upholding Dupare’s conviction, the Court set aside its earlier decision on sentencing and directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice of India for fresh hearing limited to the question of sentence. The Court reiterated that its directions in Manoj must be applied to ensure that sentencing in death penalty cases complies with constitutional safeguards.
Picture Source :
