Whether Article 32 of the Constitution Empowers Reconsideration of Death Sentence that has Attained Finality? Supreme Court answers

The Supreme Court recently heard a writ petition by a death row convict in a case involving the rape and murder of a 4-year-old girl in Nagpur. The petition sought reconsideration of his death penalty in light of new judicial guidelines laid down in Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023). A bench of three judges comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. clarified that while the conviction remains intact, the death sentence stands set aside for now, with the case remitted for a fresh hearing on sentencing alone.

The Court emphasized that Article 32 of the Constitution empowers it to intervene in exceptional circumstances, even after all appeals and reviews are exhausted, to safeguard fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21.

Background of the Case

In 2008, the convict lured a 4-year-old girl, sexually assaulted her, strangled her to death, and attempted to conceal her body. He faced trial for offences under Sections 363, 367, 376(2)(f), 302, and 201 of the IPC. In 2010, the Sessions Court awarded the death penalty. The Bombay High Court confirmed it in 2012, and the Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentence in 2014. His review and mercy petitions were also rejected.

The convict argued that his sentencing did not follow the safeguards later laid down in Manoj (2023), which mandated courts to collect detailed mitigating circumstances such as psychiatric evaluations, social history, and jail conduct reports. He invoked Article 32 of the Constitution, contending that the absence of these safeguards violated his right to fair procedure under Articles 14 and 21.

Court’s Assessment of Article 32 of the Constitution

Justice Vikram Nath, writing for the bench, explained that Article 32 of the Constitution acts as a constitutional safeguard to enforce fundamental rights. In capital punishment cases, the Court cannot ignore later-recognized procedural rights, especially when a person’s life is at stake.

The Court outlined four guiding considerations:

1. Death penalty cases are unique because the punishment is irreversible.
2. Procedural finality cannot outweigh the need to prevent constitutional violations.
3. The Manoj framework, by mandating detailed mitigation studies, has become an indispensable safeguard under Articles 14 and 21.
4. Article 32 empowers the Court to fashion appropriate corrective relief in such extraordinary circumstances.

The Court highlighted that death penalty sentencing must be individualized and based on a full picture of the convict’s circumstances. Since Manoj requires structured mitigation material, failure to provide this violates the right to equality and due process.

Concurring Opinion by Justice Sanjay Karol

In his concurring opinion, Justice Sanjay Karol firmly endorsed the maintainability of the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. He reasoned that judicial pronouncements generally apply retrospectively. Therefore, the principles in Manoj must apply to pending death penalty cases, even if the judgment came later.

He explained that Article 21 rights, which guarantee life and dignity, would be compromised if the convict is denied the opportunity to present mitigating evidence simply because his case was decided before Manoj. He stressed that Article 32 of the Constitution is a “jewel in the crown” of India’s justice system and remains open to even those convicted of the most heinous crimes.

Final Decision

The Court made it clear that the conviction stands unchanged, and its interference is limited solely to the sentence. Consequently, the death penalty upheld in 2017 has been set aside for now. The matter has been remitted for a fresh hearing on sentencing, which must comply with the safeguards mandated in Manoj.

The Registry has been directed to place the matter before the Chief Justice of India for assignment to an appropriate bench.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that while finality of judgments is important, Article 32 of the Constitution provides an extraordinary corrective mechanism to ensure that no individual facing the death penalty denies equality, fair process, and the fundamental right to life.

Case details- [Vasant Sampat Dupare v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1823, decided on 25-8-2025].