The Supreme Court has clarified that it can reopen cases involving the death penalty if it finds that the procedural safeguards laid down in its earlier judgments were not followed. This comes after the court set aside the death sentence of Vasanta Sampat Dupare, convicted of the rape and murder of a four-year-old girl, and directed a fresh hearing for sentencing.

Background of the case

Dupare was first given the death penalty in 2017 for the rape and murder of a young child. He challenged this sentence, saying that the Supreme Court’s 2022 Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh ruling was not followed. That ruling requires courts to carefully consider factors like the convict’s background, mental health, and chances of reform before deciding on a death sentence.

Supreme Court’s observations

A three-judge bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta, held that Article 32 of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to reopen the sentencing stage in death penalty cases if its own guidelines were not observed. The bench stressed that such corrective action ensures the fundamental rights of the accused under Articles 14 and 21, including equal treatment, fair procedure, and individualised sentencing, are fully protected.

The court clarified that reopening will be applied only in cases where procedural safeguards are seriously breached, as ignoring them could undermine the basic right to life.

Why the decision matters

This verdict is significant because it strengthens the retrospective reach of the Manoj judgment, emphasising that the death penalty cannot be applied mechanically. The court reinforced that the death penalty is meant for the rarest of rare cases and must consider the convict’s life circumstances and potential for rehabilitation.

In Dupare’s case, the Supreme Court noted that the trial and high courts failed to seek comprehensive psychological, psychiatric, and social evaluation reports, which are mandatory under the Manoj framework. By allowing a fresh sentencing hearing, the court aims to ensure that justice is served while protecting constitutional rights.

This ruling sets an important precedent for all death penalty cases in India, marking that even the Supreme Court can revisit its own orders if procedural fairness and human rights safeguards are not followed.