The Supreme Court of India on Thursday to decide whether it can entertain a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution to reconsider a previously affirmed death penalty.
The petition was filed by Vasanta Sampat Dupare, who was sentenced to death for raping and murdering a four-year-old child.
Background of the Case
Dupare’s death sentence was confirmed by a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court on November 26, 2014. His review petition was dismissed on May 3, 2017, and his mercy pleas were rejected by the Governor in 2022 and the President in 2023. Following these rejections, Dupare filed a writ petition seeking a reconsideration of his sentence in light of the Supreme Court’s 2022 Manoj judgment, which established guidelines on mitigating circumstances in death penalty cases.
Manoj Judgment & It’s Relevance
The Manoj judgment, delivered by Justices U.U. Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat, and Bela M. Trivedi, emphasized that mitigating factors, such as psychiatric and psychological evaluations, must be considered at the trial stage. Senior Advocate Gopal Shankaranarayan, representing Dupare, argued that these guidelines should apply to his case.
However, Maharashtra’s Advocate General, Dr. Birendra Saraf, opposed the petition, stating that once the Supreme Court has given a final judgment, the only available legal recourse is a curative petition. He cited the 1989 Triveniben v. State of Gujarat ruling and the Rupa Ashok Hurra case, both of which clarify that Article 32 cannot be used to reopen settled cases.
Defense Argument For Reconsideration
In response, Shankaranarayan referred to the 2014 Shatrughan Chauhan and Mohd Arif cases, in which the Supreme Court allowed writ petitions even after death sentences were confirmed. He argued that Mohd Arif allowed review petitions to be heard in open court after an initial rejection, setting a precedent for reconsidering such cases.
Judicial Concerns On Precedent
During the hearing, the bench—comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta—questioned whether Article 32 permits the Court to revisit a confirmed death sentence. Justice Nath expressed concern about setting a precedent where finalized cases could be reopened under Article 32. Justice Karol also wondered whether the Court’s hands were tied by previous rulings on this matter.
Arguments
Despite these concerns, Shankaranarayan urged the Court to consider the broader impact of the Manoj guidelines. He noted that 7 convicts across India remain on death row under similar circumstances and emphasized the importance of psychiatric evaluations and assessments of prisoners’ conduct over time, particularly since Dupare has been incarcerated for 17 years.
Furthermore, the Court suggested that Shankaranarayan file a curative petition, as one has not yet been submitted in this case. The hearing is set to continue next Thursday, allowing him to argue why a writ petition under Article 32 is the appropriate legal course.
The case raises crucial legal and ethical questions about the finality of death penalty judgments and the evolving standards for sentencing in India.
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
