The Supreme Court set aside a man’s death sentence in a minor’s rape-murder case, ruling that Article 32 empowers reopening of sentencing if Manoj guidelines were ignored. The Court stressed that the death penalty process must be “open, thorough and fair.”
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has set aside the death penalty of a man convicted for the rape and murder of a minor girl, ruling that in cases of capital punishment, Article 32 of the Constitution empowers the Court to reopen the sentencing stage if mandatory guidelines laid down in Manoj and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023) were not followed.
The convict had filed a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, questioning the validity of the death sentence confirmed against him.
He requested that the sentence be reconsidered in light of new judicial and legislative developments, particularly the safeguards issued by the Supreme Court in the Manoj case.
The case was heard by a three-judge Bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, and Justice Sandeep Mehta.
The Bench 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.”
At the same time, the Court clarified that Article 32 cannot be misused to routinely reopen concluded cases. It stressed that this special power will only be exercised in rare and exceptional situations where there is a serious breach of the safeguards.
The judges noted that reopening will apply
“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 for the petitioner, while Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj and Advocate General Birendra Saraf represented the respondents.
In its observations, the Court reflected on the philosophy behind punishment. It said,
“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 Bench further explained that a society must protect itself against serious crimes, but it should do so in a way that is both fair and just. It remarked,
“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.”
The Court made it clear that until all safeguards from the Manoj case are fully followed, carrying out a death sentence would go against the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
According to the Bench,
“… 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.”
Highlighting the value of human life, the judges observed,
“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.”
Finally, the Supreme Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the convict’s death sentence, and sent the matter back for a fresh hearing on the question of sentence alone.
Case Title:
Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1043)
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Lawyers Strike
