Supreme Court: Death Penalty Can Be Revisited Under Article 32

August 25, 2025

The Supreme Court of India has ruled that a death row convict can challenge their sentence through a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, granting an additional layer of judicial review even after a review petition and mercy pleas have been exhausted.

This landmark decision came in response to a plea filed by Vasant Sampat Dupare, convicted for the rape and murder of a four-year-old in 2008. While the Court upheld his conviction, it allowed a re-examination of his death sentence, citing the necessity to consider mitigating factors such as psychological and psychiatric evaluations before imposing capital punishment.

The Case of Vasant Sampat Dupare

Dupare’s crime, described by the Court as “depraved and calamitous,” involved battering a minor with stones after committing sexual assault. He was sentenced to death, and his conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2014.

A review petition filed by Dupare was dismissed in 2017, followed by the rejection of his mercy petitions by the Maharashtra Governor and the President of India in 2022 and 2023. Dupare subsequently approached the Supreme Court under Article 32, citing the 2022 judgment in Manoj v State of Rajasthan, which mandated a detailed psychological assessment of death row convicts as part of sentencing considerations.

The Supreme Court, in its recent ruling, has allowed the sentencing aspect of his case to be reheard in open court, emphasizing the role of mitigating factors.

Significance of the Judgment

This ruling marks a significant expansion of the constitutional remedy available to convicts sentenced to death:

Article 32 as a Last Resort: Traditionally, after a review and curative petition are dismissed, a convict’s only recourse is a mercy plea. This judgment adds a fresh judicial safeguard by allowing a writ petition under Article 32 to reassess sentencing.
Open Court Hearings: Unlike review petitions, which are often heard in chambers, Article 32 petitions will allow open court arguments and representation by counsel of the convict’s choice.
Focus on Mitigation: Psychological and psychiatric evaluations, along with other personal circumstances, will play a greater role in determining sentencing in capital cases.

Article 32 of the Indian Constitution: The Heart of Fundamental Rights

Article 32 is often referred to as the “heart and soul of the Constitution” (as described by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar). It empowers individuals to approach the Supreme Court directly for enforcement of their Fundamental Rights.

Key Features of Article 32:

Provides a guaranteed remedy for the protection of Fundamental Rights.
The Supreme Court has the power to issue writs such as habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari.
It is a fundamental right in itself, enshrined under Part III of the Constitution.
Jurisdiction under Article 32 cannot be suspended except during a national emergency under Article 359.

Landmark Judgments on Article 32

1. Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras (1950)

This was one of the earliest cases under Article 32. The Supreme Court struck down the Madras government’s ban on a publication, holding that freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) is a fundamental right, and Article 32 is the proper remedy for its enforcement. The Court emphasized that judicial review is the cornerstone of democracy.

2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)

In this historic case, the Supreme Court expanded the scope of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), holding that any law depriving personal liberty must be fair, just, and reasonable. The judgment reinforced that Article 32 empowers the Court to strike down arbitrary laws and widened the interpretation of Fundamental Rights.

Constitutional Perspective: Capital Punishment and Procedural Safeguards

The judgment in Dupare’s case aligns with a broader judicial trend of restricting capital punishment to the “rarest of rare” cases (Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, 1980). By allowing Article 32 petitions to reassess sentences, the Court is strengthening procedural safeguards and human rights considerations in death penalty cases.

Conclusion: Strengthening Judicial Review and Human Rights

This decision sets a precedent for enhanced constitutional protection for convicts facing the death penalty, reaffirming the Supreme Court’s role as the guardian of Fundamental Rights. By reopening the scope of Article 32 petitions, the judiciary has ensured that procedural fairness and mitigation factors are not overlooked, even in cases of heinous crimes.

This case is a reminder that the Constitution’s spirit lies in safeguarding every individual’s right to life and liberty, no matter how grave the allegations. It also reflects India’s evolving approach to balancing justice, deterrence, and human rights.