The judgment underscores that justice in death penalty cases must be both swift and scrupulously fair, leaving no room for error when a life hangs in the balance.
On August 25, 2025, the Supreme Court in Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. Union of India delivered a landmark ruling on capital-punishment jurisprudence. A three-judge bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, and Justice Sandeep Mehta examined the special character of death penalty cases, the remedial scope of Article 32, and the retrospective effect of such rulings in the long run.
In 2008, Vasanta Sampat Dupare was convicted of abducting, sexually assaulting, and murdering a four-year-old girl. After his conviction and death sentence were upheld by the trial court and the High Court, the Supreme Court dismissed Vasanta Sampat Dupare’s appeal in 2014 and his review petition in 2017. His mercy pleas to the Governor of Maharashtra and later to the President of India were also rejected.
With no options left, Dupare turned to the Supreme Court again under Article 32, asking for the death sentence to be reopened. He argued that courts are now required, before imposing the death penalty, to consider a wide range of factors about the person’s background. This includes psychiatric evaluations, details of family and social background, reports on behaviour in jail, and assessments by probation officers. These safeguards, laid down in Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023), were missing in Dupare’s case when the court handed down the death sentence.
The issue brought directly to the Court was whether Article 32 could be invoked to reopen a final death sentence based on the ruling in Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023), which codified procedures under Articles 14 and 21.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court set aside Dupare’s death sentence and remitted the matter for a fresh hearing on sentencing alone, to be conducted in strict compliance with the Manoj protocol. The Court held that Article 32 continues to serve as a constitutional safeguard in cases involving capital punishment, given the irreversible nature of such sentences, provided that the Manoj protocol is followed and evidence-based mental health assessments are used.
The Court emphasized that the procedural requirements set out in Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023) are a crucial element in the process of constitutionally valid sentencing, and can justify retrospective enforcement to protect life and ensure fairness. At the same time, the bench has cautioned that the ‘exceptional scope’ of Article 32 should not be used on a routine basis for reopening cases in which final judgment has been given. It may be invoked only where there is a clear breach of the Manoj safeguards or other material supervening facts, without compromising the rights of the accused under Article 21.
This ruling comes against the backdrop of India’s slow and uneven capital punishment system. It takes around seven years to dispose of appeals in the Supreme Court, involving death sentences, as per the Project 39A (2023). India has also recorded the highest number of death-row prisoners in two decades, with 561 inmates. The median incarceration period is nearly 17 years, before execution, for those whose mercy petitions are rejected.
Every year, over 100 death sentences are issued by the trial courts. As of 2024, trial courts ordered 139 death sentences, of which 84-90.5% cases are decided without producing the mitigating materials- such as mental health evaluations, socio-economic background, or reports on behaviour in jail. Moreover, the Court has held that the inordinate delay in executing a death sentence can itself be constitutionally untenable. Such discrepancies raise concern over the legitimacy of capital punishment, with faster sentencing at the lower court and delayed appellate reviews.
Therefore, the judgments reflect several important legal and policy implications:
- Individualized Sentencing: Capital cases are irreversible, and the Court has reinforced the importance of individualized sentencing. States must produce all required mitigating materials, as emphasized in Manoj case(2023). Legislative measures could mandate the collection and production of such materials within fixed timelines.
- Remedies under ‘Article 32’: The Court has pronounced the retrospective application of judicial protection if life is at risk. It has broadened the remedial ambit of Article 32 in exceptional circumstances.
- Persons with Disabilities in Capital Cases: The Court has acknowledged the need for expert evaluations and reasonable accommodation in cases where the sentencing is already being done. It is in line with the Mental Healthcare Act of 2017 and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act of 2016.
- Digitisation of the Prison Records: To facilitate a clear and transparent sentencing in the capital punishment cases, there should be a central repository, comprising information on the conduct in jail premises, medical and psychological records, that is accessible to courts and counsel. For the same reason, the focus should also be on strengthening medical and forensic units for effective policy implementation.
- Institutional Restrengthening: By nudging the prison and forensic officials, and even prosecutors, the stage of producing sentencing materials should be robust enough to increase the investigative standards and set a record-keeping benchmark.
In light of the Vasanta Sampat Dupare ruling, there is likely to be increasing demand for credible, evidence-based judgments that balance finality with fairness and timeliness. Ensuring prisoners’ access to thorough mitigation processes will not only safeguard life but also promote inclusivity and equity in capital sentencing. Ultimately, the judgment underscores that justice in death penalty cases must be both swift and scrupulously fair, leaving no room for error when a life hangs in the balance.
Anshal Telang is TRIP intern
Mentored and Edited by Sneha Yadav
References
The Advocates for Human Rights. (2024). India’s Compliance with International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: The Death Penalty.
https://www.theadvocatesforhumanrights.org/Res/India%20CCPR%20DP%20FINAL.pdf
Correya, S., Richmond, M. (2022). India: detention conditions of people sentenced to death. Prison Insider.
https://www.prison-insider.com/en/articles/inde-conditions-de-detention-des-condamnes-a-mort
Dhawan, H. (2024). At 561, number of death row prisoners at a 19-year high. The Times of India.
Death Penalty in India: Annual Statistics Report 2024. Project 39A, National Law University, Delhi.
Krishnan, M. (2020). Supreme Court tweaks rules to fast-track appeals in death row cases. Hindustan Times.
Das, K. (2024). Exclusive: India aims to curb judges’ arbitrary sentences for criminals, sources say. Reuters.