Published on August 28, 2025
By Sucheta...
In a significant decision, a 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court explored the contours of Article 32 of the Constitution to answer whether death sentence which has attained finality, can be revisited at all?
Supreme Court: While considering this writ petition challenging the imposition of death sentence on the convict and seeking its reconsideration in the light of subsequent legislative and judicial developments, particularly with reference to the guidelines laid down in Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2023) 2 SCC 353, the 3 Judge Bench of Vikram Nath*, Sanjay Karol** and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., held that Article 32 of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court in cases related to capital punishment, to reopen the sentencing stage where the accused has been condemned to death penalty to ensure 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 secure to every person”. Vikram Nath, J., however cautioned that Article 32 of the is the bedrock of constitutional remedies, but its exceptional scope cannot be permitted to become a routine pathway for reopening concluded matters.
In his concurring opinion, Sanjay Karol, J., opined that judicial pronouncements apply retrospectively and so a right was conferred upon the convict to have his death sentence re-examined in the light of materials gathered under the principles of Manoj (supra), and therefore to exercise such a right directly impacts the convict’s Article 21 rights, that a petition under Article 32 had to be preferred. It, therefore, must be necessarily held to be maintainable.
Background and Legal Trajectory
In the 2008, the convict lured a 4-year-old girl away from her home in Wadi, Nagpur, transported her to a secluded spot, thereafter, sexually assaulted and strangled her to death and then attempted to conceal the body among nearby shrubs. An FIR was registered on the same day. The convict was arrested, and a charge-sheet was filed for offences under Sections 363, 367, 376(2)(f), 302 and 201 of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). In 2010 Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur charged the convict under Sections 363, 367, 376(2)(f), 302 and 201 IPC and imposed death sentence on him. During the original trial, the convict, who was unable to afford private counsel, was represented by legal aid counsel whose absence on crucial dates resulted in four material witnesses remaining un-cross-examined. Bombay High Court in 2011 set aside the conviction and sentence on the ground that the convict had been denied an effective defence and remanded the matter for the limited purpose of cross-examining the said witnesses. Upon remand, the same legal-aid counsel represented the convict and four witnesses were cross-examined, but counsel was absent at the hearing on sentence. By judgment dated 23-02-2012, the convict’s charges and death sentence were re-imposed by the Trial Court, recording the convict’s age being around 45 years at the time of the incident and family dependants as mitigating circumstances. On 27-03-2012, the High Court affirmed the conviction and death sentence. The Supreme Court by judgment dated 26-11-2014 dismissed the convict’s appeal and confirmed the death sentence as the only mitigation circumstances placed at that time were related to the convict’s youth and the probability of reformation. The convict filed a review petition before the Supreme Court which was dismissed. His mercy petitions under Articles 161 and 72 of the Constitution, were also rejected. The convict submitted that on 20-05-2022, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in Manoj (supra), formulating practical, time-bound guidelines obliging Trial Courts and the State to place extensive mitigation circumstances on record including psychiatric, psychological, social-history and jail conduct reports. Furthermore, on 19-09-2022, a Constitution Bench reference was made in Death Sentence Mitigating Circumstances Guidelines, In re, (2023) 19 SCC 695, to evolve a uniform sentencing framework and to delineate modalities for psychological evaluation and collection of mitigating material, wherein the convict’s case was cited as illustrative of inconsistencies in existing practice. It was in this backdrop, that the convict approached the Supreme Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking reconsideration of the death sentence affirmed on 03-05-2017. Counsel for the convict contended that the death sentence was affirmed in 2017 without the benefit of the sentencing protocol subsequently mandated in Manoj (supra). It was submitted that the evolution of sentencing law in Manoj (supra) and the pending Constitution Bench reference in Death Sentence Mitigating Circumstances Guidelines, In re (supra), together constitute a “substantial change in law”. Applying the settled rule of beneficial construction, those developments must operate retrospectively in favour of a condemned prisoner whose sentence is yet to be executed. Meanwhile, counsels appearing for the respondents submitted that the convict’s petition under Article 32 is an impermissible attempt to reopen the Supreme Court’s judgment affirming conviction and death sentence, which had attained finality after dismissal of Review Petition and later rejection of mercy petitions by both the Governor and the President of India.
Issue Framed
Under Article 32 of the Constitution, whether Supreme Court may revisit a death sentence that stands concluded, having been affirmed on appeal, declined in review, and followed by the rejection of mercy petitions, on the strength of the sentencing framework propounded in Manoj (supra).
Court’s Assessment
A. Justice Vikram Nath’s Opinion
 |
| Justice Vikram Nath |
Perusing the facts of the case, contentions of the parties and issue framed, the Court noted that the issue so framed, revolves around the very maintainability of the petition. Taking note of the pending Constitution Bench reference in Death Sentence Mitigating Circumstances Guidelines, In re (supra) and reference to Central Government in Rishi Malhotra v. Union of India, (2017) 16 SCC 767, the Court emphasised that in the present petition, the Court’s task is confined to determining whether Article 32 of the Constitution itself empowers the Supreme Court to revisit a sentence that has attained finality. The Court perused the relevant paras in Manoj (supra) which laid the guidelines for collecting mitigating circumstances. The Court pointed out that a bare perusal of the guidelines reveals that Manoj (supra) sought to implement the reformative ideal underlying capital sentencing by replacing ad-hoc impressions of accused with verifiable data. The directions put obligation on the State, rather than the accused, to place before the Trial Court, at the very sentencing stage, a structured dossier covering psychiatric assessment proximate to the offence, socio-economic and family history, educational attainments, prior conduct, and a contemporaneous report on jail behaviour. These guidelines were laid down to serve as an interim, judicially crafted framework pending comprehensive legislative or executive action with respect to capital sentencing. The Court also pointed out that the present petition has invoked this power on a narrow but grave premise. Perusing the facts, the Court pointed out that although the conviction has long since become final, the State now proposes to end his life through a sentencing process that the convict claims, has ignored the safeguards later formalised in Manoj (Supra), thereby offending the twin guarantees of equality and due procedure embodied in Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Deliberating over the scope of Article 32 of the Constitution, the Court pointed out that this Article is the “constitutional conduit through which this Court may issue “appropriate” writs to secure the enforcement of Fundamental Rights”. The Court stated that to determine Article 32’s scope, four principal lines of enquiry must be considered-
- The settled place of Article 32 of the Constitution as a continuing safeguard where a sentence of death has yet to be carried out.
- Court’s power and duty to set aside procedural finality when that course alone can avert a breach of the guarantees of equality and life.
- To test whether the sentencing framework articulated in Manoj (supra) has assumed the character of an indispensable procedural safeguard.
- Delineate the form and extent of the corrective relief that may properly be fashioned under Article 32 of the Constitution, mindful that any order given must both protect constitutional rights and preserve the stability of adjudication.
Considering the afore-stated lines of enquiry one by one, the Court explained that death-sentence cases stand apart because the punishment extinguishes the right to life in an irreversible way, and that singular feature obliges the Court to keep the door of constitutional review open even after the ordinary appellate and review avenues have closed. Article 32 of the Constitution, therefore, remains available whenever a supervening fact, such as inordinate delay, emergent mental illness, or a parity-based anomaly, or a subsequently recognised procedural guarantee throws the legitimacy of a capital sentence into doubt.
“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”.
Considering power to do complete justice notwithstanding procedural finality, the Court explained that the settled law of is that procedural finality cannot stand in the way of curing a constitutional wrong which implicates life or liberty. The Court noted that the convict’s grievance, namely, the absence of the procedural guarantees subsequently crystallised in Manoj (supra) and the emergence of new medical evidence, lies outside the curative ambit. Thus, the only efficacious avenue is the inherent corrective power recognised in A.R. Antulay v R.S. Nayak, (1988) 2 SCC 602, exercised through Article 32 of the Constitution and, where necessary, Article 142 of the Constitution, to fashion relief that vindicates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India notwithstanding the formal finality of prior proceedings.
On the question of procedural fairness in capital sentencing as an imperative under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, the Court stated that right to be sentenced in a principled and individualized manner flows directly from Articles 14 and 21. It was pointed out that Manoj (supra) was delivered against the backdrop of persistent concerns highlighted in the 262nd Law Commission Report, about the inconsistency and inadequacy of death-penalty sentencing. This led to the devising of procedural architecture imposing various obligations on State to protect the Rights of the accused. “These requirements are not administrative niceties, but they exist to give substantive content to the constitutional mandate that punishment should be individually tailored and proportionate”. The Court observed that since Manoj (supra), an institutional practice has emerged whereby the Court routinely calls for the mandated reports before deciding appeals in capital punishment cases. Taking note of the suo-motu cognisance of the absence of a uniform trial-level framework in Death Sentence Mitigating Circumstances Guidelines, In re (supra), the Court concluded that Manoj (supra) protocol has become an indispensable component of a “meaningful, real and effective” sentencing hearing. The Court thus stated that, “In the present case, where the petitioner seeks only the enforcement of a procedural safeguard now recognised as integral to Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and where no equally efficacious alternative remedy exists, the invocation of our extraordinary jurisdiction is both appropriate and justified”. On the question of plenary power to mould relief under Articles 32 and 142, the Court explained that the Court’s ability to grant effective relief is not exhausted by the formal confines of appellate review. Article 32 is not restricted to reviewing decisions of subordinate courts or executive authorities. In exceptional situations it empowers the Court to revisit even its own final orders where doing so is necessary to prevent a continuing breach of fundamental rights.
B. Justice Sanjay Karol’s concurring opinion
 |
| Justice Sanjay Karol, J. |
In his concurring opinion, Sanjay Karol, J., pointed out that the question that is to be considered is whether the rights under Article 21 of the present convict and the other similarly placed convicts, who would be benefitted by the retrospective application of Manoj (supra), would be harmed and their dignity threatened if this particular aspect is seen only from the angle of a subsequent development, as it would defeat the purpose of individualized sentencing put forth in Manoj (supra) and the mitigating factors that could possibly be brought on record by the present convict, will be left untouched and unexplored. Karol, J., opined that the Courts do not create new law but merely declare what the law has always been, so that any overruling by a subsequent decision, operates retrospectively. He explained that judicial declarations usually operate retrospectively, ensuring that the benefits of such rulings generally reach past cases unless specifically restricted. “This continuity in judicial philosophy upholds fairness by protecting individual rights regardless of the timing of the judgment”. He further pointed out that the law declared in Manoj (supra) has acquired such a status that the non-availability thereof to the convict prejudices him greatly. Karol, J., pointed out that in the present case, where conviction has been confirmed, and review was also dismissed; the convict had no other avenue other than Supreme Court where he may seek the benefit of the principles in Manoj (supra). “It is almost impossible to conceive that the remedy under Article 32 would be foreclosed to the petitioner when Article 21 is the only thing that stands between the petitioner and the rope of death, only in order to underscore and emphasize the finality of a judicial determination, which in all cases apart from such exceptional circumstances, is a cardinal principle to be abided by”.
“Article 32 has pride of place – a Jewel on the Crown of the Justice Delivery System – in the Indian Constitutional scheme and is unquestionably available to even those who are serving sentences for the most heinous offences”.
Therefore, Karol, J., held the present petition to be maintainable under Article 32 of the Constitution given that Manoj (supra) was not in operation at the time when the convict was sentenced to death and his review was dismissed, and no other recognized way was available to him to approach the Court seeking benefit thereof.
Decision
The Court clarified that the finding of guilt recorded against the convict is left untouched and its intervention is strictly confined to the issue of sentence. Hence, the convict’s death sentence affirmed by Supreme Court on 3-5-2017 was set aside for the time being, and the matter was remitted for a fresh hearing on sentence alone, to be conducted in conformity with the directions in Manoj (supra). The Registry was directed to place the matter before the Chief Justice of India for assignment to an appropriate Bench.
[Vasant Sampat Dupare v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1823, decided on 25-8-2025]
*Judgment by Justice Vikram Nath
**Concurring opinion by Justice Sanjay Karol
Advocates who appeared in this case: For Petitioner(s): Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayanan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Prerna Priyadarshini, AOR Mr. Shourya Dasgupta, Adv. Ms. Trisha Chandran, Adv. Mr. Pradyut Kashyap, Adv. Ms. Shreya Rastogi, Adv. Ms. Manasa Ramakrishna, Adv. Mr. Syed Faraz Alam, Adv. Mr. Atharva Gaur, Adv. Mr. Aayushman Aggarwal, Adv.
For Respondent(s): Dr. Birendra Saraf, Advocate General Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv. Mr. K.M.Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kr.tyagi, Adv. Mr. Anuj Srinivas Udupa, Adv. Ms. Agrmaa Singh, Adv. Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR
