Sentencing Stage In Death Penalty Cases Can Be Reopened By Invoking Power Under Article 32: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that 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.
Justice Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, Justice Sandeep Mehta, Supreme Court
While setting aside the death sentence of a man in a minor girl’s rape and murder case, the Supreme Court held that Article 32 of the Constitution of India empowers the 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 and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023) were followed.
A Writ Petition was filed by the accused under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenging the continuing validity of the sentence of death affirmed against him and seeking its reconsideration in the light of subsequent legislative and judicial developments, particularly with reference to the guidelines laid down in the aforesaid Manoj case.
The three-Judge Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, “We therefore hold that Article 32 of the Constitution of India 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 (supra) were followed. This corrective power is invoked precisely to compel rigorous application of the Manoj (supra) safeguards 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 of India secure to every person.”
The Bench said that 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 and reopening will be reserved only for 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 to life, dignity and fair process.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan appeared on behalf of the Petitioner while Additional Solicitor General (ASG) K.M. Nataraj and Advocate General (AG) Birendra Saraf appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court in view facts of the case, noted, “Modern penology reinforces that conviction. Empirical literature has yet to establish that the spectacle of an execution deters homicide more effectively than a sentence of incarceration for the natural span of life. What is clear, however, is that a death sentence closes every door as it ends all hope of remorse, of reconciliation with victims’ families, and of uncovering mistakes that sometimes emerge only after many years.”
The Court added that a just society may protect itself from serious crime, but it must do so with measures that can be clearly defended as both necessary and fair.
“Our Constitution therefore sets a very high bar before the State can take a life. We strongly believe that it is not enough to simply point to the horror of an offence. The process leading to a death sentence must itself be beyond reproach as it must also be open, thorough and fair”, it remarked.
The Court said that until safeguards laid down in Manoj case are fully applied, carrying out a death sentence would sit contrary to Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution as they promise equality and fair procedure to every person in our society.
“… Article 32 of the Constitution of India is not restricted to reviewing decisions of subordinate courts or executive authorities. In exceptional situations it empowers this Court to revisit even its own final orders where doing so is necessary to prevent a continuing breach of fundamental rights. The controlling test is whether such intervention is required to avert manifest injustice under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and technical rules of procedure cannot be permitted to thwart that constitutional mission”, it further noted.
The Court also observed that the power to intervene under Article 32 of the Constitution is meant to prevent the Constitution from being stymied by formal finality when a human life hangs in the balance.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Writ Petition, set aside the death sentence, and remitted the case for a fresh hearing on sentence alone.
Cause Title- Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1043)
