Re-Opening the Gallows: Supreme Court Authorises Retrospective Article 32 Review of Death Sentences to Enforce ‘Manoj’ Sentencing Protocol

1. Introduction

The judgment in Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. Union of India, 2025 INSC 1043, marks a watershed in Indian capital-sentencing jurisprudence. A three-Judge Bench headed by Vikram Nath, J. has ruled that:

Article 32 empowers the Supreme Court to re-open even finally concluded death sentences—confirmed on appeal, dismissed in review, and after rejection of mercy petitions—if subsequent legal developments disclose a constitutional infirmity.
The sentencing framework laid down in Manoj & Ors. v. State of M.P. (2023) 2 SCC 353, which mandates a “principled and individualised” collection of psychiatric, psychological, socio-economic and jail-conduct material, is retrospectively applicable to all cases where execution is still pending.
Accordingly, the Court set aside Dupare’s death sentence and remitted the matter for a fresh hearing on sentence alone, directing strict compliance with Manoj. The conviction remains undisturbed.

The ruling not only protects the petitioner but also establishes a far-reaching precedent capable of influencing every pending capital case in India.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Court’s dispositive holdings may be distilled as follows:

Maintainability under Article 32: Even after appeal, review and clemency have failed, a condemned prisoner may invoke Article 32 if a supervening legal development threatens the fairness of execution.
Retrospective force of Manoj: Sentencing safeguards that give life to Articles 14 and 21 are “indispensable”. Because judicial decisions merely “declare” the correct law (Blackstonian theory), Manoj applies to pre-existing death sentences.
Death sentence set aside & remand: The 2017 affirmation of Dupare’s sentence was vitiated by absence of structured mitigation. A fresh, data-rich sentencing hearing is required.
Caveat: Article 32 re-opening remains an exceptional remedy—confined to clear breaches of constitutionally mandated safeguards in capital cases.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Harbans Singh v. State of U.P. (1982) 2 SCC 101 – First recognized that the Court can commute a death sentence under Article 32 to avoid “manifest injustice” even after mercy has failed.
Triveniben v. State of Gujarat (1989) 1 SCC 678 – Established that post-conviction delay or supervening circumstances on death row are justiciable under Article 32.
Navneet Kaur v. NCT of Delhi (2014) 7 SCC 264 – Commuted death owing to delay and mental illness; underscored retrospective application of new safeguards.
Santosh Bariyar (2009) 6 SCC 498 – Rooted capital sentencing in Articles 14 & 21, demanding individualised approach.
Manoj v. State of M.P. (2023) 2 SCC 353 – Introduced concrete, State-driven protocol for collecting mitigation; today’s decision confers it retrospective status.
A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1988) 2 SCC 602 – Recognised inherent power of Supreme Court to correct its own errors ex debito justitiae.
Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange (2008) 14 SCC 171 & Blackstonian theory – Support the proposition that when the Court overrules or clarifies law, the clarification applies from inception.
Mohd. Arif (Review in death cases) (2014) 9 SCC 737 – Affirmed enhanced procedural safeguards in capital review petitions; today’s case extends that logic to Article 32.

Collectively these authorities demonstrate a decades-long judicial trajectory: from sporadic mercy-based interventions to a principled constitutional framework ensuring dignity, equality and fair procedure up to the scaffold.

3.2 Core Legal Reasoning

3.2.1 Article 32 as a “Continuing Safeguard”

The Bench characterises capital cases as occupying a sui generis category because execution is “irreversible.” Therefore Article 32 cannot be barred by formal finality; it remains a living conduit to prevent constitutional wrongs.

3.2.2 Retrospective Nature of Judicial Declarations

Invoking Blackstone, Salmond and Canadian authority (A-G (Can.) v. Hislop), the Court reasons that judges “do not make law; they declare what it has always been.” Hence when Manoj articulated the mandatory mitigation protocol, it simultaneously illuminated a pre-existing constitutional requirement rooted in Articles 14 & 21.

3.2.3 Individualised Sentencing as a Fundamental Right

The Court reiterates that the “rarest-of-rare” doctrine post-Bachan Singh requires a balancing of aggravation & mitigation. Denying an accused the opportunity to present scientific mitigation offends equality, dignity and fair procedure.
Hence a death sentence imposed sans Manoj-style inquiry is constitutionally suspect.

3.2.4 Limits and Discipline

While unlocking Article 32, the Bench simultaneously imposes a prudential limit: only “clear, specific breaches” of procedural safeguards—especially in death cases—will merit re-opening. This addresses State concerns of litigation floodgates.

3.3 Anticipated Impact

a) Immediate Beneficiaries

The Court notes only seven prisoners are presently positioned similarly to Dupare; each can now seek Manoj-compliant re-sentencing.
Defence counsel across India will leverage the judgment to demand structured mitigation evidence, even at late stages.

b) Trial-Court Practice

Although Manoj was directed at trial courts, today’s ruling eliminates any doubt. Sessions Judges must always call for psychiatric, psychological, social-history and prison reports before deciding sentence, failing which appellate courts (and now SC under Article 32) may annul the sentence.

c) Executive Clemency & Welfare Legislation

Mitigation dossiers (mental illness, intellectual disability, socio-economic deprivation) will dovetail with protective statutes such as the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 and Mental Healthcare Act 2017, enhancing the substantive content of mercy petitions.

d) Evolution of Death-Penalty Jurisprudence

The judgment intensifies pressure on the Constitution Bench in Suo Motu W.P. (Crl.) 1/2022 (uniform sentencing framework) and Rishi Malhotra (mode of execution). By recognising reformation and human dignity over finality, the Court signals a gradual but steady constitutional de-emphasis of capital punishment.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Article 32: The Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction that allows any person to approach it directly for enforcement of fundamental rights by issuing writs (habeas corpus, mandamus, etc.).
“Rarest of Rare” Test: Standard formulated in Bachan Singh requiring that death penalty be imposed only when life imprisonment is unquestionably inadequate, after weighing aggravating and mitigating factors.
Manoj Sentencing Guidelines: 2023 judgment that obliges trial courts and the State to compile comprehensive mitigation material—psychiatric exams near the time of offence, social background, jail conduct, probation-officer reports—before deciding sentence.
Blackstonian Theory of Precedent: Doctrine that courts declare pre-existing law; therefore, when they clarify or overrule, the new declaration has retrospective operation.
Curative Petition vs Article 32 Petition: A curative petition (post-review) is extremely narrow—confined to errors apparent on the face. An Article 32 writ can challenge continuing violation of fundamental rights even after curative is dismissed.
Individualised Sentencing: Philosophy that punishment should fit not only the crime but also the offender’s specific character, history and capacity for reform.

5. Conclusion

“No man shall be sent to the gallows until every constitutional safeguard is honoured.” That, in essence, is the new command of Vasanta Sampat Dupare. By treating Manoj’s mitigation protocol as retrospectively embedded in Articles 14 and 21, the Supreme Court has:

Elevated individualised sentencing from a best-practice aspiration to a constitutional imperative.
Reinvigorated Article 32 as a living, post-finality safety-valve in death-penalty matters.
Balanced the sanctity of final judgments with the higher moral duty to prevent unconstitutional executions.

Looking forward, trial courts, High Courts and prison administrations must institutionalise structured mitigation collection. For the condemned, a narrow but vital corridor has opened—one that insists the State pause, reassess and reaffirm that even when punishment is ultimate, the process must remain humane, equal and impeccably fair.