Vasanta Sampat Dupare vs Union of India & Ors.

Held: [per Vikram Nath, J.] (for himself and Sandeep Mehta, J) Petitioner’s request for a new sentencing hearing which is compliant to Manoj’s case falls squarely within Art.32 – Relief sought does not disturb the conviction or reopen evidentiary findings but merely insists that the ultimate penalty be imposed, if at all, through the procedural safeguards now recognised as integral to a fair and individualised sentence – Granting this remedy is thus, a legitimate, and indeed compelling exercise of the Court’s plenary power u/Art.32 to secure the effective enforcement of fundamental rights – Contemporary Indian society no longer conceives criminal punishment purely in retributive terms – It also measures the quantum of a sentence by its capacity to preserve the possibility of human reform – Goal of reformation, repeatedly affirmed in our jurisprudence, presupposes that the legal system will not foreclose the prospect of moral regeneration unless every procedural assurance of accuracy and fairness has first been scrupulously observed – Art.32 is the bedrock of constitutional remedies, but its exceptional scope cannot be permitted to become a routine pathway for reopening concluded matters – Reopening will be reserved only for those cases where there is a clear, specific breach of the new procedural safeguards as these breaches are so serious that, if left uncorrected, they would undermine the accused person’s basic rights to life, dignity and fair process – Finding of guilt recorded against the petitioner is left untouched – Sentence of death affirmed by this Court set aside – Matter remitted to this Court for a fresh hearing on sentence alone, to be conducted in conformity with the directions in Manoj’s case – Registry is directed to place the matter before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for assignment to an appropriate Bench. [Paras 26, 27, 32-35] Held: [per Sanjay Karol, J.] (Concurring): In Manoj’s case all that has been done is that a streamlined and time-bound process has been laid down, to be necessarily followed by the Courts below, which hitherto had not been done despite postulation in Bachan Singh’s case – If the law once declared is not followed and the same causes a demonstrable detriment to a person, or a convict, such person will have a legitimate grievance which the Courts would be then required to remedy – Law declared by the Constitutional Courts applies retrospectively – Ex-consequenti, the benefit of Manoj’s case applies to the petitioner retrospectively and the denial of such benefit, which may eventually have the effect of saving him from the hangman’s noose, if it is indeed found that his socio-economic and psychological background as also other mitigating factors as may be procured, did play a sufficient role in the petitioner committing the heinous crime that he did, nonconsideration of these factors would constitute a violation of Art.21, since the effect thereof would be that his life would be eventually taken away – Nothing whatsoever under the law can cast a shadow or eclipse the fundamental right, whether it be the availability of a substantive alternate remedy or procedural wrangles – Since this Court has confirmed the petitioner’s conviction, and review was also dismissed, he has no other avenue other than this Court where he may seek the benefit of the principles in Manoj’s case – It is almost impossible to conceive that the remedy under this Article would be foreclosed to the petitioner when Art.21 is the only thing that stands between the petitioner and the rope of death, only in order to underscore and emphasize the finality of a judicial determination, which in all cases apart from such exceptional circumstances, is a cardinal principle to be abided by – Submission that after dismissal of a review petition, the only available path is that of the curative petition, cannot be accepted since this jurisdiction is to be exercised only in those cases where the circumstances permit the finality of a judicial decision to be altered with – Art.32 is available to even those who are serving sentences for the most heinous offences – Given that Manoj’s case was not in operation or did not exist at the time when the petitioner was sentenced and his review was dismissed, no other recognized way was available to him to approach this Court seeking benefit thereof – Judicial pronouncements apply retrospectively and so a right was conferred upon him to have his sentence re-examined in the light of materials gathered under the principles of Manoj’s case, it is to exercise such a right which has a direct impact on his Art.21 rights that a petition u/Art.32 had to be preferred – Thus, has to be necessarily held to be maintainable in the specific facts of this case, where a subsequent development in law granted a benefit to a convict, and there was no other avenue available to him. [Paras 54-59]

Sentence/Sentencing – Death sentence – Sentencing guidelines laid down in Manoj and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh’s case – Elucidated. [Paras 9, 10]

Constitution of India – Art. 32 – Scope of – Principal lines of enquiry for determination:

Held: Art.32 is the constitutional conduit through which this Court may issue “appropriate” writs to secure the enforcement of Fundamental Rights – It furnishes a direct route for citizen to this Court whenever a protected Fundamental Right is said to be under threat – To understand the scope of Art.32, the settled place of Art.32 as a continuing safeguard where a sentence of death has yet to be carried out, must be considered – This Court’s power and duty to set aside procedural finality when that course alone can avert a breach of the guarantees of equality and life, is to be examined – Whether the sentencing framework articulated in Manoj’s case has assumed the character of an indispensable procedural safeguard, is to be tested – Form and extent of the corrective relief that may properly be fashioned u/Art.32 be delineated, mindful that any order is taken must both protect constitutional rights and preserve the stability of adjudication – Art.32 jurisdiction in capital cases constitutes a special constitutional continuing safeguard that survives the ordinary hierarchy of appeal, review and even mercy – Power to intervene u/Art.32 is meant to prevent the Constitution from being stymied by formal finality when a human life hangs in the balance – Procedural finality cannot stand in the way of curing a constitutional wrong which implicates life or liberty – Procedural fairness in capital sentencing is an imperative u/Arts.14 and 21 – Since Manoj’s case, an institutional practice emerged whereby this Court routinely calls for the mandated reports before deciding appeals in capital punishment cases – Manoj’ case protocol has become an indispensable component of a “meaningful, real and effective” sentencing hearing – There is plenary power to mould relief u/Arts.32 and 142 – Court’s ability to grant effective relief is not exhausted by the formal confines of appellate review – In exceptional situations it empowers this Court to revisit even its own final orders where doing so is necessary to prevent a continuing breach of fundamental rights. [Paras 11, 12]