Supreme Court Directs Fresh Sentencing Hearing Under Manoj Framework For Death-Row Convict

A three‑judge Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta heard a writ petition under Article 32 challenging the continuing validity of a death sentence affirmed against the petitioner and sought its reconsideration in the light of the sentencing protocol laid down in Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh. The petition assailed the absence of the comprehensive mitigation material and procedural safeguards mandated in Manoj and relied on subsequent medical and psychiatric records said to show intellectual disability and serious mental illness.

The Court allowed the petition and held that Article 32 empowered it to reopen the sentencing stage in capital cases where constitutionally required procedural safeguards were not observed. It emphasised that the power was confined to the sentence and did not disturb the conviction. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “We therefore hold that Article 32 of the Constitution of India 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 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 of India secure to every person.” The Court also quoted the constitutional ethos: “The majesty of our Constitution lies not in the might of the State but in its restraint,” and cautioned that Article 32’s exceptional scope must not become a routine pathway for reopening concluded matters.

Background The petitioner, Vasanta Sampat Dupare, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, for offences including murder and sexual assault of a four‑year‑old in 2008 and was sentenced to death on 29 September 2010. The Bombay High Court initially set aside conviction for want of effective defence and remanded for cross‑examination; upon recommitment the trial court again convicted and reimposed death. The High Court and this Court thereafter affirmed conviction and sentence; review was dismissed in 2017 and clemency petitions to the Governor and President were rejected by 2023.

After finality, the petitioner’s legal team obtained jail medical records and fresh psychiatric and psychometric assessments (including a clinical psychologist’s report of 17 June 2022) indicating major depressive disorder with psychotic features, organic brain injury and specific learning disability with low intellectual functioning. The petitioner relied on Manoj (2023), where the Court had mandated time‑bound, structured collection of mitigation material — psychiatric and psychological evaluations proximate to the offence, socio‑economic and family history, jail conduct reports and probation officer inputs — and argued those guidelines should operate retrospectively to require a fresh, individualized sentencing exercise. The Union and State opposed the petition, arguing finality after dismissal of review and clemency and contending Manoj operated prospectively.

The Court analysed longstanding precedent permitting constitutional intervention in death‑penalty cases where supervening facts or procedural lacunae endangered Articles 14 and 21, and found that the Manoj protocol had become an “indispensable component” of a meaningful sentencing hearing. While leaving the finding of guilt untouched, the Court set aside the affirmed death sentence “for the present” and remitted the matter to this Court for a fresh hearing on sentence alone to be conducted in conformity with Manoj. The Registry was directed to place the matter before the Chief Justice for assignment; the Court recorded that the relief was narrowly tailored and warned that reopening would be reserved for clear breaches of the new procedural safeguards. The judgment noted there were a limited number of similarly placed convicts seeking the benefit of Manoj.

Case Details: Case No.: WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 371 OF 2023 (2025 INSC 1043) Case Title: VASANTA SAMPAT DUPARE v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayanan, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Mr. K.M. Nataraj, Additional Solicitor General (for Union of India); Dr. Birendra Saraf, Advocate General (for State of Maharashtra)