The Supreme Court of India is currently deliberating on a crucial legal issue—whether it can entertain a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution to reconsider a confirmed death penalty in light of its 2022 judgment in Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh. The Manoj ruling laid down detailed guidelines on considering mitigating circumstances during sentencing.
The petition in question has been filed by Vasanta Sampat Dupare, who was sentenced to death for the rape and murder of a four-year-old child. His death penalty was confirmed by a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court on November 26, 2014. A subsequent review petition was dismissed on May 3, 2017. Following this, his mercy petitions were rejected by the Governor in 2022 and the President in 2023, prompting him to file the present writ petition.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Emphasizes Magistrates' Duty to Ascertain Truth Before Summoning Accused
The case is being heard by a bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta. Representing the petitioner, Senior Advocate Gopal Shankaranarayan argued that the Court should determine whether the Manoj guidelines can be applied to cases where death sentences have already been confirmed.
The Manoj judgment, delivered by Justices UU Lalit, S Ravindra Bhat, and Bela M Trivedi on May 10, 2022, emphasized that mitigating factors must be assessed at the trial stage, and the state must provide psychiatric and psychological evaluations of the accused before sentencing.
Maharashtra's Advocate General, Dr. Birendra Saraf, opposed the maintainability of the petition, asserting that an Article 32 petition cannot be used to challenge a Supreme Court verdict that has attained finality. He contended that the only available remedy was filing a curative petition.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Demands Apology from Seoni District Bar Association Members Over Lawyers' Strike
Saraf cited the 1989 judgment in Triveniben v. State of Gujarat and the Rupa Ashok Hurra ruling to reinforce his argument that a curative petition was the only legal recourse in such cases. He further argued that while the petitioner could challenge any subsequent developments, he could not seek a recall of an already settled verdict.
Shankaranarayan countered this by citing two landmark Supreme Court cases:
Shatrughan Chauhan (2014) – Held that a death sentence can be commuted due to delays in deciding a mercy petition.
Mohd Arif (2014) – Mandated that review petitions in death penalty cases must be heard in open court.
He pointed out that both these judgments arose from writ petitions filed by convicts after their death sentences had been affirmed. Shankaranarayan further highlighted that in Mohd Arif, the Supreme Court held that a judgment could be reconsidered even after a review petition had been dismissed, provided the death sentence had not yet been carried out.
Concerns Over the Scope of Article 32
A significant concern raised by the Court was whether it could use its powers under Article 32 to reopen a case that had been conclusively decided by a three-judge bench. Justice Vikram Nath remarked:
“What the learned Advocate General has argued has also been troubling us. Can Article 32 be used to reopen a case where the death sentence and conviction have already been confirmed? Would it not be more appropriate for the petitioner to file an application in the original proceedings instead?”
Justice Sanjay Karol echoed this concern, stating:
“Given the precedent set by the judgments cited by the Advocate General, are our hands not tied under Article 32?”
Read Also:- Supreme Court Questions Gender Neutrality in JAG Recruitment: 'Why Fewer Women Allowed?'
Shankaranarayan referred to statistics from the Project 39A of the National Law University, Delhi (NLUD), emphasizing that seven individuals remain on death row following the Manoj judgment. He urged the Court to consider whether the Manoj directives—especially those requiring psychiatric evaluation and behavioral assessments of death row inmates—could be applied retrospectively.
“We have been inside for 17 years, and this psychiatric evaluation is something we never had the advantage of,” he argued.
The Court orally suggested that Shankaranarayan explore filing a curative petition since none had been filed in this case. The hearing is set to continue next Thursday, allowing the petitioner to convince the bench of the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 32.
Case Details: VASANTA SAMPAT DUPARE Vs UNION OF INDIA|W.P.(Crl.) No. 371/2023
