Death Sentence Can Be Challenged In Article 32 Petition For Breach Of Procedural Safeguards: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today allowed an Article 32 petition filed by Vasanta Sampat Dupare, a man convicted and sentenced for the rape and murder of a 4-year old girl, challenging his sentence of death penalty.

"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 was 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.

We however add a word of caution. 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" observed the Court.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta delivered the verdict, after having heard Dupare and the State on issues including whether the Court can entertain a petition under Article 32 to reconsider its judgment affirming the death penalty granted in light of the subsequent judgment in Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022) which provided for factoring in mitigating circumstances.

The Court said that its earlier directions in Manoj would apply, however, cautioned that concluded matters cannot be routinely re-opened under Article 32. The relief shall be reserved to cases where there has been breach of procedural safeguards, it said.

The Court maintained the conviction of Dupare. However, it set aside the 2017 view taken on sentencing for the present and placed the matter before CJI BR Gavai for appropriate listing of the case to be heard afresh on sentencing in conformity with Manoj.

To recap briefly, Dupare was awarded the death sentence by an Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur. His appeal was dismissed by the High Court and death sentence affirmed. Aggrieved, he approached the Supreme Court, but a 3-judge bench confirmed the High Court decision on November 26, 2014. A review petition filed by Dupare was dismissed on May 3, 2017. The Governor and the President as well rejected his mercy petitions in 2022 and 2023, respectively, subsequent to which the present writ petition was filed.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, for Dupare, urged the Court to consider whether guidelines in Manoj were applicable to the case. Per contra, Maharashtra Advocate General-Dr. Birendra Saraf objected to the filing of Article 32 petition in order to challenge an order of the Supreme Court which had attained finality. He stated that Dupare's only remedy was a curative petition.

For context, in Manoj, a bench of Justices UU Lalit, S Ravindra Bhat and Bela M Trivedi stated that mitigating circumstances must be considered at the trial stage and the state must produce the materials disclosing the psychiatric and psychological evaluation of the accused.

'The Square Circle Clinic', NALSAR University of Law, provided legal assistance to Dupare.

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment

Case Title: VASANTA SAMPAT DUPARE Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR., W.P.(Crl.) No. 371/2023 

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 843