A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta, Senior Advocate Gopal Shankaranarayan,
Introduction
In this case a significant legal question regarding the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution for reconsideration of a death sentence in light of the Supreme Court’s 2022 judgment in Manoj v. State of MP. The petition was filed after all judicial remedies, including review and mercy petitions, had been exhausted. The Supreme Court is examining whether the Manoj guidelines on mitigating factors can be retrospectively applied in this case.
Facts of the Case
Vasanta Sampat Dupare was convicted for the rape and murder of a 4-year-old child. The Supreme Court confirmed his death sentence on November 26, 2014. Review petition was dismissed on May 3, 2017. Mercy petition was rejected by the Governor (2022) and the President (2023). Following the rejection of his mercy plea, Dupare filed a writ petition under Article 32, citing the Supreme Court’s 2022 Manoj judgment, which laid down new guidelines on sentencing in death penalty cases.
Issues
- Whether the Supreme Court can entertain a writ petition under Article 32 to reconsider a final judgment that has already confirmed the death penalty.
- Whether the Manoj judgment (2022), which mandates a detailed assessment of mitigating factors, can be applied retrospectively to the petitioner’s case.
- Whether the petitioner should file a curative petition instead of a writ petition, in accordance with the rulings in Triveniben v. State of Gujarat (1989) and Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002).
Contentions of the Petitioner
Senior Advocate Gopal Shankaranarayan, representing the petitioner, argued:
The Manoj ruling emphasized that courts must consider psychiatric and psychological evaluations before awarding the death penalty. These principles should apply to all death row convicts, including those whose sentences were confirmed before 2022.
The Supreme Court entertained writ petitions in similar cases, such as:
- Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014) – Held that delays in mercy petitions could be a ground for commutation.
- Mohd Arif v. Supreme Court of India (2014) – Stated that review petitions in death penalty cases must be heard in open court.
Dupare has spent 17 years in prison, and his behavior during this time should be assessed before execution.
Seven individuals remain on death row after the Manoj ruling.The Court must allow them a fresh evaluation under the new guidelines.
Contentions of the Respondent
Advocate General of Maharashtra, Dr. Birendra Saraf, opposed the petition, arguing:
The death sentence was upheld by a three-judge bench, and a review petition was dismissed. Under precedents like Triveniben (1989) and Rupa Ashok Hurra (2002), the only remedy available is a curative petition. If the Court allows such a petition, any closed case could be reopened, setting a dangerous precedent.
The Manoj guidelines do not mandate reopening of past cases where sentencing was completed under existing laws at the time.
6. Court’s Analysis & Observations
- Concerns Over the Scope of Article 32:
- Justice Vikram Nath questioned whether Article 32 can be used as an appeal mechanism after the Supreme Court has already confirmed a sentence.
- Justice Sanjay Karol observed that the Court’s hands may be tied in light of earlier precedents on curative petitions.
- Curative Petition as an Alternative Remedy:
- The Bench suggested that the petitioner file a curative petition in the original proceedings instead of seeking relief through Article 32.
- Potential for a Larger Impact:
- The Court acknowledged that the Manoj guidelines raised valid concerns about sentencing procedures.
- However, it remains unclear if these can be applied retrospectively without a statutory basis.
- Adjournment & Further Hearing:
- The case was adjourned to next Thursday, allowing the petitioner’s counsel to further argue the maintainability of the writ petition.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court is grappling with whether Article 32 can be invoked to reassess a confirmed death penalty in light of later jurisprudence (Manoj case). The Court has suggested that the appropriate remedy may be a curative petition, not a writ petition. The final ruling will have significant implications for death row prisoners seeking relief under evolving sentencing principles.
