The Supreme Court on Monday, August 25, 2025, held that it is empowered under Article 32 of the Constitution to reopen the sentencing stage in capital punishment cases where procedural safeguards have been violated. A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta made this significant ruling while allowing a plea from a death row convict to have his sentencing heard afresh.
Case Background
The matter came before the court in a plea filed by Vasant Sampat Dupare, a resident of Nagpur. Dupare was convicted for the rape and murder of a four-year-old child in April 2008. The prosecution’s case was that he had lured the child with chocolates and subsequently crushed her head with stones to prevent identification.
Dupare’s death sentence was confirmed by the Supreme Court in a judgment dated November 26, 2014. A subsequent review petition against this verdict was dismissed on May 3, 2017. His mercy petitions were also rejected by the Governor of Maharashtra in 2022 and the President of India in 2023.
Court’s Analysis
The convict filed a plea under Article 32, arguing that there had been a breach of procedural safeguards during his sentencing. The Bench, agreeing with this contention, allowed the plea.
The court heavily relied on its 2022 judgment in Manoj Vs State of Madhya Pradesh, which had laid down several mandatory guidelines for trial courts. These guidelines include the necessity of obtaining a psychiatric and psychological evaluation report of the accused before imposing the death penalty.
The Bench explicitly held that its corrective powers under Article 32 could be invoked to ensure compliance with these safeguards. “We hold that Article 32 of the Constitution 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 the Manoj vs Madhya Pradesh was followed,” the Bench stated.
Elaborating on the constitutional basis for this power, the court observed, “This corrective power is invoked precisely to compel rigorous application of the safeguards laid down in Manoj judgment in such cases, thereby ensuring that the condemned person is not deprived of the fundamental rights to equal treatment, individualised sentencing and fair procedure that Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution secure to every person.”
However, the court also issued a word of caution, clarifying that this was an exceptional power and should not be used routinely. “The top court also said the exceptional scope of Article 32 cannot be permitted to become a routine pathway for reopening concluded matters,” the order noted. The Bench specified the conditions for such an intervention: “Reopening will be reserved for only 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 like dignity and fair process.”
Decision
While upholding Dupare’s conviction for the crime, the Supreme Court set aside the 2017 view taken on his sentencing. The Bench has placed the matter before the Chief Justice of India, B. R. Gavai, for the case to be listed appropriately for a fresh hearing on the question of sentence.
