In a significant development, the Supreme Court on Monday set aside its own 2017 order upholding the death sentence of Vasanta Sampat Dupare, convicted for the rape and murder of a four-year-old girl, and directed a fresh hearing on his punishment.
The decision delivered by a three-judge bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta underscores the evolving constitutional approach to capital punishment and the centrality of procedural fairness in the sentencing process.
The top court’s intervention was triggered by an Article 32 petition filed by Dupare, who argued that his sentencing did not comply with the 2022 judgment in Manoj vs State of Madhya Pradesh, which had mandated courts to undertake a detailed evaluation of mitigating factors such as the convict’s socio-economic background, mental health, and possibility of reform before imposing the death penalty.
By allowing Dupare’s petition, the Court has not only acknowledged the retrospective reach of Manoj but has also clarified that Article 32 empowers it to reopen sentencing in death penalty cases where its own procedural safeguards have not been observed.
The bench emphasised that the death penalty, being the rarest of rare punishments, cannot be imposed mechanically without giving due weight to the convict’s life circumstances. In Manoj, the Supreme Court had laid down a more structured sentencing framework, requiring trial courts and High Courts to seek comprehensive psychological, psychiatric, and social evaluation reports of the convict before awarding death.
The Dupare’s case, decided in 2017, did not benefit from these safeguards. The Court held that this omission was grave enough to justify reopening the matter under Article 32, despite the fact that his conviction and sentence had already attained finality.
“Reopening will be reserved for only those cases where there is breach of new procedural safeguards, as if breaches are so serious that if left uncorrected, they would undermine the accused's basic rights to life.”
Article 32 as a lifeline
The ruling significantly extends the remedial scope of Article 32 in death penalty matters. Traditionally, once the Supreme Court confirmed a death sentence, the convict’s options were limited to mercy petitions before the president or governor. The scope for judicial review was narrow.
By recognising that Article 32 can be used to revisit sentencing in light of evolving constitutional standards, the Court has created a new lifeline for death row prisoners. It marks a shift from the finality of judgments to the primacy of protecting fundamental rights, especially Article 21’s guarantee of life and personal liberty.
Broader implications for death penalty jurisprudence
This judgment carries far-reaching implications. First, it strengthens the procedural protections available to those facing capital punishment, reinforcing the judiciary’s own responsibility to ensure fairness at every stage. Sentencing, often seen as the weaker link in death penalty trials, now faces greater scrutiny.
Second, it raises questions about the retrospective application of procedural safeguards. If Dupare’s sentence can be reopened, could other convicts sentenced prior to 2022 also seek relief? The Court has left this door ajar, potentially triggering a wave of petitions from death row inmates whose mitigating circumstances were never adequately considered.
Also read
- 'Digital arrest scams require immediate attention': Supreme Court assigns CBI to lead the charge against cyber rackets
- Who is Maulana Mahmood Madani? Jamiat leader stokes row over remarks on Supreme Court and 'jihad'
- SC asks Samay Raina, other comedians to host disabled people twice a month; netizens react
- Why SC upheld dismissal of Christian Army officer for refusing regiment’s temple rituals
The decision also highlights the tension between judicial finality and fairness. Ordinarily, the Supreme Court’s rulings are binding and conclusive. Reopening a six-year-old judgment risks undermining that finality. Yet, as the bench noted, when life itself is at stake, fairness must prevail over closure.
This balancing act is visible in the Court’s cautionary language: it does not want every convict to misuse Article 32, but it recognises that ignoring new safeguards would “undermine the accused’s basic rights to life.”
The Dupare ruling may not end in his exoneration, his conviction for rape and murder stands, but it ensures that the decision to take his life will not be carried out without full compliance with constitutional safeguards.
