Death Penalty Can Be Contested Under Article 32 for Procedural Lapses: Supreme Court

Swift Summary

• The Supreme Court of India invoked Article 32 of the Constitution to reopen the sentencing phase in a death penalty case due to procedural safeguards being breached.
• Vasant Sampat Dupare, convicted for raping and killing a four-year-old in Nagpur in April 2008, had his earlier death sentence set aside for reconsideration.
• The court referenced its own 2022 Manoj Vs Madhya Pradesh judgment, which mandates trial courts collect psychiatric and psychological evaluation reports before issuing death sentences.
• A Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta stated that breaches of such guidelines undermine fundamental rights like equal treatment and fair procedure under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
• While the conviction was upheld, the apex court flagged that extraordinary use of Article 32 would be limited to cases with clear violations of procedural safeguards.
• Dupare’s sentencing will now be revisited after listing by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai. Previously confirmed sentences from appeals (2014), review petitions (2017), and mercy plea rejections (Maharashtra Governor in 2022; President in 2023) were noted.

Indian Opinion Analysis

the Supreme Court’s invocation of Article 32 highlights its commitment to upholding procedural fairness even under capital punishment cases. By mandating adherence to guidelines outlined in past judgments,including psychiatric evaluations for individualized sentencing,it underscores India’s evolving focus on humane justice standards within constitutional frameworks.

This precedent ensures stricter scrutiny over trial procedures that impact fundamental rights such as dignity and equal treatment. however, the decision also stresses sparing application-only for severe breaches-to prevent routine reopening mechanisms from undermining judicial finality. Revisiting Dupare’s sentencing coudl influence broader criminal justice deliberations on capital punishment while reaffirming foundational principles enshrined in Articles 14 and 21.

Read more