Supreme Court To Decide Maintainability Of Writ Petition Filed To Reconsider Death Penalty Based On 2022 'Manoj' Verdict

The Supreme Court today(March 27) considered the question of law whether it can entertain a petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution to reconsider a judgment of the Court affirming the death penalty granted to a convict in the light of its subsequent judgment in Manoj wherein it set practical guidelines on mitigating circumstances. 

The writ petition was filed by Vasanta Sampat Dupare who was given death penalty for raping and murdering a 4 year old child.

Dupare's death sentence was confirmed by the Supreme Court's three-judge bench on November 26, 2014. A review petition was dismissed on May 3, 2017. The Governor and the President rejected his mercy petition in 2022 and 2023, respectively, subsequent to which the writ petition was filed immediately.

Before a bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta, Senior Advocate Gopal Shankaranarayan, for the convict, submitted that the Court will have to consider whether the Manoj guidelines can be applied in this case.

The Manoj judgment was pronounced by a bench of Justices UU Lalit, S Ravindra Bhat and Bela M Trivedi on May 10, 2022. In the said judgment, the Court stated that mitigating circumstances must be considered at the trial stage and the state must produce the materials disclosing the psychiatric and psychological evaluation of the accused.

Advocate General of Maharashtra, Dr. Birendra Saraf, objected to the filing of Article 32 petition to challenge an order of the Supreme Court which has attained finality. He stated that the only remedy is the curative petition.

Saraf added that it's open for the petitioner to challenge the subsequent events but he cannot seek a recall of the earlier directives. He relied on Triveniben v. State of Gujarat judgment of 1989 and Rupa Ashok Hurra judgment on the filing of a curative petition.

Shankaranarayan relied on the judgments in  2014 Shatrughan Chauhan and 2014 Mohd Arif cases. In Shatrughan Chauhan, it was held that death penalty can be commuted on the ground of delay in deciding mercy petition. In Mohd Arif, it was held that review petitions against death penalties must be heard in the open court. He pointed out that both these judgments were delivered in writ petitions filed by convicts after their death sentences were finally confirmed by the Supreme Court.

He added that in Mohd Arif, it has been stated that the judgment can be applied in cases where the review petition has been dismissed but the death sentence has not been executed. He tried to make an analogy and stated that he was asking a similar relief in this case. 

Shankaranarayan also relied on the statistics produced by NLUD's Project 39A and said:

"Across the country, there are seven people who are on death row [after the Manoj judgment]. Your Lordship can consider the possibility of the Manoj directives, which can go into the details of psychiatric analysis, looks at their conduct while they have been in prison for several years, etc. We have been inside for 17 years and this evaluation is not something we have the advantage of."

"What the learned Advocate General has argued, has also been troubling us, that whether in Article 32 we can sit in appeal over the three-judge judgment confirming the death sentence and conviction. Would it not be appropriate if you come up with an application in that proceedings itself that can be considered?...It is a dangerous proposition that any judgment or matter closed but Article 32 can come and open up that case," Justice Nath remarked.

"In the teeth of these two decisions[as referred by Advocate General], are ours hands under Article 32 not tied?," Justice Karol responded. The Court orally suggested Shankaranarayan to consider filing a curative petition as it has not been filed in this case.

The Court will continue hearing the matter next Thursday after Shankaranarayan requested that he will try to convince the Court that filing a writ petition is appropriate in this case.

Case Details: VASANTA SAMPAT DUPARE Vs UNION OF INDIA|W.P.(Crl.) No. 371/2023