On May 1, the Supreme Court reserved its judgment in a writ petition filed by death row convict Vasanta Sampat Dupare. He sought the benefit of the 2022 Manoj judgment, which laid down vital guidelines on considering mitigating circumstances during trial, especially in death penalty cases.
Dupare was sentenced to death for the rape and murder of a 4-year-old child. His petition urged the Court to apply the Manoj ruling to his case, despite the original verdict against him already attaining finality. The Manoj judgment, delivered by Justices U.U. Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat, and Bela M. Trivedi on May 10, 2022, emphasized that trial courts must account for the mental, psychological, and background details of the accused before awarding the death penalty.
“The Court stated that mitigating circumstances must be considered at the trial stage, and the state must produce materials disclosing the psychiatric and psychological evaluation of the accused.”
Read Also:- Supreme Court Tells Centre To Check Citizenship Of Family Facing Deportation After Pahalgam Terror Attack
The current bench—comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta—raised a crucial point during the hearing: whether a writ petition under Article 32 is valid against a final Supreme Court judgment, especially when no curative petition has been filed.
Dupare’s death sentence was confirmed by a three-judge bench on November 26, 2014. His review petition was rejected in 2017, followed by denial of mercy petitions by the Governor and the President in 2022 and 2023, respectively.
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayan, representing Dupare through NLUD's Project 39A, argued that even if the original judgment is final, the Manoj ruling should apply retrospectively in light of its focus on fair sentencing. In contrast, Maharashtra’s Advocate General Dr. Birendra Saraf and Additional Solicitor General K.M. Natraj opposed the plea, stating that a curative petition, not a writ petition, was the appropriate legal route.
Sankaranarayan quoted the A.R. Antulay vs. R.S. Nayak (1988) ruling:
“This Court is not powerless to correct its error which has the effect of depriving a citizen of his fundamental rights and more so, the right to life and liberty. It can do so in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction… if the Court is satisfied that its directions have resulted in the deprivation of the fundamental rights of a citizen.”
Read Also:- Mandatory Prescription of Generic Drugs Can Curb Pharma Bribery, Says Supreme Court
Sankaranarayan clarified that his client was not challenging the conviction or the sentence but was only requesting the application of the Manoj guidelines—since they were not in existence at the time of the original trial.
“I am not asking for revisiting the conviction… I am saying please consider the subsequent judgment which laid down guidelines for mitigation… allow me to take advantage of this, as you have done for many who committed similar offences earlier,” he submitted.
The Court has now reserved its judgment in VASANTA SAMPAT DUPARE v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR | W.P. (Crl.) No. 371/2023. The verdict is expected to clarify whether relief under the Manoj judgment can be extended to cases that were finalized before it was delivered, and whether such relief can be granted through a writ petition under Article 32.
