On May 1, 2025, the Supreme Court of India reserved its verdict in a writ petition that raises a profound constitutional and jurisprudential question: Can a death row convict seek the benefit of a subsequent judgment that establishes new procedural safeguards? The case—Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. Union of India—centers on the applicability of the landmark 2022 Manoj judgment to a convict whose death sentence has attained finality.
Background: The Convict and the Crime
Vasanta Sampat Dupare was convicted for the heinous rape and murder of a 4-year-old child. His conviction and death sentence were affirmed by a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court on November 26, 2014. His review petition was dismissed on May 3, 2017, and both the Governor and the President rejected his mercy petitions in 2022 and 2023, respectively. With no curative petition filed, his sentence has reached the final stage—execution.
Yet, a new writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution seeks a limited but critical relief: to consider whether the mitigating circumstances framework laid down in the Manoj judgment—decided after his sentencing—can be retroactively applied to his case.
The Manoj Judgment: A New Standard for Sentencing
In Manoj & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022), a three-judge bench comprising Justices U.U. Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat, and Bela M. Trivedi laid down comprehensive sentencing guidelines in capital punishment cases. The Court ruled that sentencing must be a separate, informed process where the State is obligated to furnish psychiatric, psychological, and socio-economic background materials to assist the court in deciding whether the death penalty is warranted.
The judgment significantly reinforced the procedural requirements for sentencing in death penalty cases, mandating that these factors be addressed during trial and not deferred to appellate stages.
The Present Legal Dilemma: Can ‘Manoj’ Apply Retroactively?
At the heart of Vasanta Dupare’s plea is the contention that even though the Manoj judgment was delivered post facto, its spirit must be applied to his case to uphold Article 21—the right to life and personal liberty. Arguing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayan, representing Project 39A of the National Law University, Delhi, emphasized that this was not a request for revisiting the conviction or sentence per se but for applying a subsequently evolved judicial standard on mitigating circumstances.
Sankaranarayan cited A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1988), wherein the Supreme Court had held that it is not powerless to correct a procedural wrong—even post-judgment—especially if it has resulted in the deprivation of fundamental rights.
Opposition from the State and Centre
The petition faced opposition from both the State of Maharashtra and the Union of India. Advocate General Dr. Birendra Saraf and Additional Solicitor General K.M. Natraj argued that a writ petition under Article 32 is not maintainable to revisit a final Supreme Court decision. They maintained that the only recourse left was a curative petition under Article 137, which the petitioner had not filed.
They further contended that allowing such writ petitions would disrupt the finality of judicial decisions and lead to an unending chain of litigation.
Article 32 vs Finality of Judgments
A pivotal issue before the bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta is whether the constitutional remedy under Article 32 can be used to seek relief against a judgment that has attained finality. While Article 32 is the cornerstone of the Constitution for the enforcement of fundamental rights, it is rarely used to reopen Supreme Court judgments—especially in criminal cases where the sentence has already been confirmed and mercy petitions exhausted.
However, the petitioner’s counsel clarified that the request is not to annul or reconsider the sentence, but merely to apply the Manoj guidelines to reassess mitigating factors which were not available during trial or appellate proceedings.
Why This Case Matters
This case is significant for several reasons:
- Judicial Consistency in Death Penalty Cases: The Supreme Court has often acknowledged the arbitrariness in awarding the death penalty due to the lack of uniform sentencing procedures. Manoj attempted to remedy this; now the Court must decide if its principles can extend backward in time.
- Evolution of Procedural Safeguards: It raises a vital question of whether judicially evolved safeguards can be denied simply because they came post-conviction. Should access to procedural justice depend solely on timing?
- Reinforcing Article 21: The judgment could redefine the Supreme Court’s approach to the procedural protection of fundamental rights under Article 21, even after the finality of criminal proceedings.
- Limitation of Curative Petitions: If the Court permits the Article 32 petition, it may expand the jurisprudential understanding of corrective mechanisms outside curative jurisdiction.
Legal and Ethical Dimensions
The ethical argument advanced by the petitioner hinges on the idea that since the execution has not been carried out, the convict must be allowed to benefit from a more humane sentencing framework. The legal position, as elaborated in Antulay, suggests that where there has been a procedural lapse that deprives a citizen of fundamental rights, the Supreme Court may step in under its inherent powers.
In contrast, the counterargument is rooted in judicial discipline and the need for finality. Opponents fear that entertaining such petitions could open floodgates, where every convict seeks a review based on subsequent judgments, thereby paralysing the judicial system.
Awaited Verdict
The Court’s decision, now reserved, will likely have far-reaching implications for India’s death penalty jurisprudence. If the Court accepts the plea, it could pave the way for several convicts on death row to seek re-evaluation under the Manoj principles. On the other hand, a dismissal would reaffirm the doctrine of finality and the narrow scope of Article 32 petitions against prior Supreme Court rulings.
Conclusion
The case of Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. Union of India is more than a legal technicality—it is a constitutional crossroads where principles of finality, fairness, and fundamental rights intersect. As the nation awaits the judgment, it remains to be seen whether the apex court will open a new chapter in procedural justice or uphold the sanctity of finality in death penalty cases.
