{"id":358195,"date":"2025-08-28T15:30:01","date_gmt":"2025-08-28T10:00:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=358195"},"modified":"2025-08-29T18:14:15","modified_gmt":"2025-08-29T12:44:15","slug":"supreme-court-reconsideration-of-death-sentence-under-art-32","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/28\/supreme-court-reconsideration-of-death-sentence-under-art-32\/","title":{"rendered":"Whether Art. 32 of the Constitution empowers reconsideration of death sentence that has attained finality? Supreme Court answers"},"content":{"rendered":"<style>\n.animate-charcter{background-image: linear-gradient(-225deg, #231557 0%, #44107a 29%, #ff1361 67%, #fff800 100%); background-size: 200% auto; -webkit-background-clip: text; -webkit-text-fill-color: transparent; animation: textclip 0s linear infinite;}\n@keyframes textclip {to {background-position: 200% center;}}\n<\/style>\n<div style=\"text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;\">\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Supreme Court:<\/span> While considering this writ petition challenging the imposition of death sentence on the convict and seeking its reconsideration in the light of subsequent legislative and judicial developments, particularly with reference to the guidelines laid down in <span style=\"font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\">Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh<\/span>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/51bg9n7F\" target=\"_blank\">(2023) 2 SCC 353<\/a>, the 3 Judge Bench of <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Vikram Nath*<\/span>, <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Sanjay Karol**<\/span> and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., held that Article <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001575141\" target=\"_blank\">32<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726967\" target=\"_blank\">Constitution<\/a> empowers the Supreme Court in cases related to capital punishment, to reopen the sentencing stage where the accused has been condemned to death penalty to ensure that the guidelines mandated in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Manoj (supra)<\/span> were followed. &#8220;<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">This corrective power is invoked precisely to compel rigorous application of the Manoj (supra) safeguards in such cases, thereby ensuring that the condemned person is not deprived of the fundamental rights to equal treatment, individualized sentencing, and fair procedure that Articles <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001574870\" target=\"_blank\">14<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001574949\" target=\"_blank\">21<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726967\" target=\"_blank\">Constitution<\/a> secure to every person<\/span>&#8221;. <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Vikram Nath, J.<\/span>, however cautioned that Article 32 of the is the bedrock of constitutional remedies, <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">but its exceptional scope cannot be permitted to become a routine pathway for reopening concluded matters<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">In his concurring opinion, <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Sanjay Karol, J.<\/span>, opined that judicial pronouncements apply retrospectively and so a right was conferred upon the convict to have his death sentence re-examined in the light of materials gathered under the principles of <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Manoj (supra)<\/span>, and therefore to exercise such a right directly impacts the convict&#8217;s Article 21 rights, that a petition under Article 32 had to be preferred. It, therefore, must be necessarily held to be maintainable.<\/p>\n<h3>Background and Legal Trajectory:<\/h3>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">In the 2008, the convict lured a 4-year-old girl away from her home in Wadi, Nagpur, transported her to a secluded spot, thereafter, sexually assaulted and strangled her to death and then attempted to conceal the body among nearby shrubs. An FIR was registered on the same day. The convict was arrested, and a charge-sheet was filed for offences under Sections <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001561682\" target=\"_blank\">363<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001561690\" target=\"_blank\">367<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001561701\" target=\"_blank\">376(2)(f)<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001561607\" target=\"_blank\">302<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001561485\" target=\"_blank\">201<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726960\" target=\"_blank\">Penal Code, 1860<\/a> (IPC).<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">In 2010 Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur charged the convict under Sections <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001561682\" target=\"_blank\">363<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001561690\" target=\"_blank\">367<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001561701\" target=\"_blank\">376(2)(f)<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001561607\" target=\"_blank\">302<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001561485\" target=\"_blank\">201<\/a> <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726960\" target=\"_blank\">IPC<\/a> and imposed death sentence on him. During the original trial, the convict, who was unable to afford private counsel, was represented by legal aid counsel whose absence on crucial dates resulted in four material witnesses remaining un-cross-examined. Bombay High Court in 2011 set aside the conviction and sentence on the ground that the convict had been denied an effective defence and remanded the matter for the limited purpose of cross-examining the said witnesses.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Upon remand, the same legal-aid counsel represented the convict and four witnesses were cross-examined, but counsel was absent at the hearing on sentence. By judgment dated 23-02-2012, the convict&#8217;s charges and death sentence were re-imposed by the Trial Court, recording the convict&#8217;s age being around 45 years at the time of the incident and family dependants as mitigating circumstances. On 27-03-2012, the High Court affirmed the conviction and death sentence. The Supreme Court by judgment dated 26-11-2014 dismissed the convict&#8217;s appeal and confirmed the death sentence as the only mitigation circumstances placed at that time were related to the convict&#8217;s youth and the probability of reformation.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The convict filed a review petition before the Supreme Court which was dismissed. His mercy petitions under Articles <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001574895\" target=\"_blank\">161<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001575290\" target=\"_blank\">72<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726967\" target=\"_blank\">Constitution<\/a>, were also rejected.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The convict submitted that on <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">20-05-2022, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Manoj (supra)<\/span><\/span>, formulating practical, time-bound guidelines obliging Trial Courts and the State to place extensive mitigation circumstances on record including psychiatric, psychological, social-history and jail conduct reports. Furthermore, on 19-09-2022, a Constitution Bench reference was made in <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\"><span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Death Sentence Mitigating Circumstances Guidelines, In re<\/span><\/span>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/a9JkdSHX\" target=\"_blank\">(2023) 19 SCC 695<\/a>, to evolve a uniform sentencing framework and to delineate modalities for psychological evaluation and collection of mitigating material, wherein the convict&#8217;s case was cited as illustrative of inconsistencies in existing practice.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">It was in this backdrop, that <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">the convict approached the Supreme Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001575141\" target=\"_blank\">32<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726967\" target=\"_blank\">Constitution<\/a><\/span> seeking reconsideration of the death sentence affirmed on 03-05-2017.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Counsel for the convict contended that the death sentence was affirmed in 2017 without the benefit of the sentencing protocol subsequently mandated in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Manoj (supra)<\/span>. It was submitted that the evolution of sentencing law in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Manoj (supra)<\/span> and the pending Constitution Bench reference in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Death Sentence Mitigating Circumstances Guidelines, In re (supra)<\/span>, together constitute a &#8220;substantial change in law&#8221;. Applying the settled rule of beneficial construction, those developments must operate retrospectively in favour of a condemned prisoner whose sentence is yet to be executed.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Meanwhile, counsels appearing for the respondents submitted that the convict&#8217;s petition under Article 32 is an impermissible attempt to reopen the Supreme Court&#8217;s judgment affirming conviction and death sentence, which had attained finality after dismissal of Review Petition and later rejection of mercy petitions by both the Governor and the President of India.<\/p>\n<h3>Issue Framed:<\/h3>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Under Article <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001575141\" target=\"_blank\">32<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726967\" target=\"_blank\">Constitution<\/a>, whether Supreme Court may revisit a death sentence that stands concluded, having been affirmed on appeal, declined in review, and followed by the rejection of mercy petitions, on the strength of the sentencing framework propounded in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Manoj (supra).<\/span><\/p>\n<h3>Court&#8217;s Assessment:<\/h3>\n<p style=\"font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline; text-underline-style: solid; text-underline-mode: continuous;\">A. Justice Vikram Nath&#8217;s Opinion:<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Perusing the facts of the case, contentions of the parties and issue framed, the Court noted that the issue so framed, revolves around the very maintainability of the petition. Taking note of the pending Constitution Bench reference in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Death Sentence Mitigating Circumstances Guidelines, In re (supra)<\/span> and reference to Central Government in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Rishi Malhotra v. Union of India<\/span>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/x9yK6Q7g\" target=\"_blank\">(2017) 16 SCC 767<\/a>, the Court emphasised that in the present petition, the Court&#8217;s task is confined to determining <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">whether Article <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001575141\" target=\"_blank\">32<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726967\" target=\"_blank\">Constitution<\/a> itself empowers the Supreme Court to revisit a sentence that has attained finality<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court perused the relevant paras in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Manoj (supra)<\/span> which laid the guidelines for collecting mitigating circumstances. The Court pointed out that a bare perusal of the guidelines reveals that <span style=\"font-style: italic;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Manoj (supra)<\/span><\/span><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\"> sought to implement the reformative ideal underlying capital sentencing by replacing ad-hoc impressions of accused with verifiable data<\/span>. The <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">directions put obligation on the State, rather than the accused<\/span>, to place before the Trial Court, at the very sentencing stage, a structured dossier covering psychiatric assessment proximate to the offence, socio-economic and family history, educational attainments, prior conduct, and a contemporaneous report on jail behaviour. <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">These guidelines were laid down to serve as an interim, judicially crafted framework pending comprehensive legislative or executive action with respect to capital sentencing<\/span>. The Court also pointed out that the present petition has invoked this power on a narrow but grave premise. Perusing the facts, the Court pointed out that although the conviction has long since become final, the State now proposes to end his life through a sentencing process that the convict claims, has ignored the safeguards later formalised in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Manoj (Supra)<\/span>, thereby offending the twin guarantees of equality and due procedure embodied in Articles <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001574870\" target=\"_blank\">14<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001574949\" target=\"_blank\">21<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726967\" target=\"_blank\">Constitution<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>Deliberating over the <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">scope of Article <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001575141\" target=\"_blank\">32<\/a><\/span> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726967\" target=\"_blank\">Constitution<\/a>, the Court pointed out that this Article is the &#8220;<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">constitutional conduit through which this Court may issue &#8220;appropriate&#8221; writs to secure the enforcement of Fundamental Rights<\/span>&#8221;. The Court stated that to determine Article 32&#8217;s scope, four principal lines of enquiry must be considered-<\/p>\n<ol style=\"list-style-type: upper-roman; margin-left: 12.7mm;\">\n<li>\n<p>The settled place of Article <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001575141\" target=\"_blank\">32<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726967\" target=\"_blank\">Constitution<\/a> <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">as a continuing safeguard<\/span> where a sentence of death has yet to be carried out.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p>Court&#8217;s power and duty to set aside procedural finality when that course alone can avert a breach of the guarantees of equality and life.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p>To test whether the sentencing framework articulated in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Manoj (supra)<\/span> has assumed the character of an indispensable procedural safeguard.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Delineate the form and extent of the corrective relief that may properly be fashioned under Article <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001575141\" target=\"_blank\">32<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726967\" target=\"_blank\">Constitution<\/a>, mindful that any order given must both protect constitutional rights and preserve the stability of adjudication.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Considering the afore-stated lines of enquiry one by one, the Court explained that <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">death-sentence cases stand apart because the punishment extinguishes the right to life in an irreversible way<\/span>, and <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">that singular feature obliges the Court to keep the door of constitutional review open<\/span> even after the ordinary appellate and review avenues have closed. <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Article <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001575141\" target=\"_blank\">32<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726967\" target=\"_blank\">Constitution<\/a>, therefore, remains available<\/span> whenever a supervening fact, such as inordinate delay, emergent mental illness, or a parity-based anomaly, or a subsequently recognised procedural guarantee throws the legitimacy of a capital sentence into doubt.<\/p>\n<p class=\"animate-charcter\" style=\"margin-bottom: 3%; margin-left: 36pt; font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\">&#8220;The power to intervene under Article <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001575141\" target=\"_blank\">32<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726967\" target=\"_blank\">Constitution<\/a> is meant to prevent the Constitution from being stymied by formal finality when a human life hangs in the balance&#8221;.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Considering <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">power to do complete justice notwithstanding procedural finality<\/span>, the Court explained that the settled law of is that procedural finality cannot stand in the way of curing a constitutional wrong which implicates life or liberty. The Court noted that the convict&#8217;s grievance, namely, the absence of the procedural guarantees subsequently crystallised in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Manoj (supra)<\/span> and the emergence of new medical evidence, lies outside the curative ambit. Thus, <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">the only efficacious avenue is the inherent corrective power recognised in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">A.R. Antulay v R.S. Nayak<\/span><\/span>, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/k8680zeK\" target=\"_blank\">(1988) 2 SCC 602<\/a>, exercised through Article <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001575141\" target=\"_blank\">32<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726967\" target=\"_blank\">Constitution<\/a> and, where necessary, Article <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001574873\" target=\"_blank\">142<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726967\" target=\"_blank\">Constitution<\/a>, to fashion relief that vindicates Articles <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001574870\" target=\"_blank\">14<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001574949\" target=\"_blank\">21<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726967\" target=\"_blank\">Constitution of India<\/a> notwithstanding the formal finality of prior proceedings.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">On the question of <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">procedural fairness in capital sentencing as an imperative under Articles <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001574870\" target=\"_blank\">14<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001574949\" target=\"_blank\">21<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726967\" target=\"_blank\">Constitution<\/a><\/span>, the Court stated that right to be sentenced in a principled and individualized manner flows directly from Articles 14 and 21. It was pointed out that <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Manoj (supra)<\/span> was delivered against the backdrop of persistent concerns highlighted in the 262<span style=\"vertical-align: super;\">nd<\/span> Law Commission Report, about the inconsistency and inadequacy of death-penalty sentencing. This led to the devising of procedural architecture imposing various obligations on State to protect the Rights of the accused. &#8220;<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">These requirements are not administrative niceties, but they exist to give substantive content to the constitutional mandate that punishment should be individually tailored and proportionate<\/span>&#8221;. The Court observed that <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">since <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Manoj (supra)<\/span>, an institutional practice has emerged<\/span> whereby the Court routinely calls for the mandated reports before deciding appeals in capital punishment cases. Taking note of the suo-motu cognisance of the absence of a uniform trial-level framework in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Death Sentence Mitigating Circumstances Guidelines, In re (supra)<\/span>, the Court concluded that <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\"><span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Manoj (supra)<\/span> protocol has become an indispensable component of a &#8220;meaningful, real and effective&#8221; sentencing hearing<\/span>. The Court thus stated that, &#8220;<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">In the present case, where the petitioner seeks only the enforcement of a procedural safeguard now recognised as integral to Articles <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001574870\" target=\"_blank\">14<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001574949\" target=\"_blank\">21<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726967\" target=\"_blank\">Constitution of India<\/a>, and where no equally efficacious alternative remedy exists, the invocation of our extraordinary jurisdiction<\/span> <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">is both appropriate and justified<\/span>&#8221;.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">On the question of <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">plenary power to mould relief under Articles 32 and 142<\/span>, the Court explained that the Court&#8217;s ability to grant effective relief is not exhausted by the formal confines of appellate review. Article 32 is not restricted to reviewing decisions of subordinate courts or executive authorities. <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">In exceptional situations it empowers the Court to revisit even its own final orders where doing so is necessary to prevent a continuing breach of fundamental rights<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p style=\"font-weight: bold; text-decoration: underline; text-underline-style: solid; text-underline-mode: continuous;\">B. Justice Sanjay Karol&#8217;s concurring opinion<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">In his concurring opinion, <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Sanjay Karol, J.<\/span>, pointed out that the question that is to be considered is whether the rights under Article 21 of the present convict and the other similarly placed convicts, who would be benefitted by the retrospective application of <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Manoj (supra)<\/span>, would be harmed and their dignity threatened if this particular aspect is seen only from the angle of a subsequent development, as it would defeat the purpose of individualized sentencing put forth in Manoj (supra) and the mitigating factors that could possibly be brought on record by the present convict, will be left untouched and unexplored.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Karol, J., opined that the Courts do not create new law but merely declare what the law has always been, so that any overruling by a subsequent decision, operates retrospectively. He explained that <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">judicial declarations usually operate retrospectively, ensuring that the benefits of such rulings generally reach past cases unless specifically restricted<\/span>. &#8220;<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">This continuity in judicial philosophy upholds fairness by protecting individual rights regardless of the timing of the judgment<\/span>&#8221;. He further pointed out that the law declared in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Manoj (supra)<\/span> has acquired such a status that the non-availability thereof to the convict prejudices him greatly.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Karol, J., pointed out that in the present case, where conviction has been confirmed, and review was also dismissed; the convict had no other avenue other than Supreme Court where he may seek the benefit of the principles in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Manoj (supra)<\/span>. &#8220;<span style=\"font-style: italic;\">It is almost impossible to conceive that the remedy under Article 32 would be foreclosed to the petitioner when Article 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<\/span>&#8221;.<\/p>\n<p class=\"animate-charcter\" style=\"margin-bottom: 3%; margin-left: 36pt; font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;\">&#8220;Article 32 has pride of place &#8211; a Jewel on the Crown of the Justice Delivery System &#8211; in the Indian Constitutional scheme and is unquestionably available to even those who are serving sentences for the most heinous offences&#8221;.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Therefore, Karol, J., held the present petition to be maintainable under Article <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001575141\" target=\"_blank\">32<\/a> of the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726967\" target=\"_blank\">Constitution<\/a> given that <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Manoj (supra)<\/span> was not in operation at the time when the convict was sentenced to death and his review was dismissed, and no other recognized way was available to him to approach the Court seeking benefit thereof.<\/p>\n<h3>Decision:<\/h3>\n<ul style=\"list-style-type: disc;\">\n<li>\n<p>The Court clarified that the finding of guilt recorded against the convict is left untouched and its <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">intervention is strictly confined to the issue of sentence<\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p>Hence, the <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">convict&#8217;s death sentence affirmed by Supreme Court on 3-5-2017 was set aside for the time being<\/span>, and the matter was remitted for a fresh hearing on sentence alone, to be conducted in conformity with the directions in <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">Manoj (supra)<\/span>.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Registry was directed to place the matter before the Chief Justice of India for assignment to an appropriate Bench.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">[<span style=\"font-weight: bold; color: #632423;\">Vasant Sampat Dupare v. Union of India, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/VhuiSwlG\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">2025 SCC OnLine SC 1823<\/a>, decided on 25-8-2025<\/span>]<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 18pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #000080;\">*Judgment by Justice Vikram Nath<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 18pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #000080;\">**Concurring opinion by Justice Sanjay Karol<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<hr\/>\n<p>Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">For Petitioner(s):<\/span> Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayanan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Prerna Priyadarshini, AOR Mr. Shourya Dasgupta, Adv. Ms. Trisha Chandran, Adv. Mr. Pradyut Kashyap, Adv. Ms. Shreya Rastogi, Adv. Ms. Manasa Ramakrishna, Adv. Mr. Syed Faraz Alam, Adv. Mr. Atharva Gaur, Adv. Mr. Aayushman Aggarwal, Adv.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">For Respondent(s):<\/span> Dr. Birendra Saraf, Advocate General Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv. Mr. K.M.Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kr.tyagi, Adv. Mr. Anuj Srinivas Udupa, Adv. Ms. Agrmaa Singh, Adv. Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR<\/p>\n<h3 style=\"color: #000080;\">Buy Constitution of India &nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.ebcwebstore.com\/product\/the-constitution-of-india-coat-pocket-edition?products_id=100647\" target=\"_blank\">HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.ebcwebstore.com\/product\/the-constitution-of-india-coat-pocket-edition?products_id=100647\" target=\"_blank\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/s3.amazonaws.com\/ebcwebstore\/images\/the-constitution-of-india-coat-pocket-edition-Gopal-Sankaranarayanan-ebc-front-cover.JPG\" alt=\"Constitution of India\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\" class=\"aligncenter size-large wp-image-294438\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<h3 style=\"color: #000080;\">Buy Penal Code, 1860 &nbsp; <a href=\"https:\/\/www.ebcwebstore.com\/product_info.php?products_id=1158\" target=\"_blank\">HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.ebcwebstore.com\/product_info.php?products_id=1158\" target=\"_blank\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/penal-code-1860-300x200.jpg\" alt=\"penal code, 1860\" width=\"300\" height=\"200\" class=\"aligncenter size-large wp-image-294601\" srcset=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/penal-code-1860-300x200.jpg 300w, https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/penal-code-1860-768x511.jpg 768w, https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/penal-code-1860-440x293.jpg 440w, https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/penal-code-1860-650x433.jpg 650w, https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/penal-code-1860.jpg 886w, https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/penal-code-1860-60x40.jpg 60w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p style=\"font-style: italic;\">In a significant decision, a 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court explored the contours of Article 32 of the Constitution to answer whether death sentence which has attained finality, can be revisited at all?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":358204,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,9],"tags":[14581,3035,2896,88107,55015,34871,88106,88108,9731],"class_list":["post-358195","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-supremecourt","tag-capital-punishment","tag-death_penalty","tag-Death_sentence","tag-death-sentence-mitigating-circumstances-guidelines","tag-justice-sanjay-karol","tag-justice-vikram-nath","tag-manoj-v-state-of-madhya-pradesh-guidelines","tag-reconsideration-of-death-sentence","tag-right-to-life"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.4 (Yoast SEO v26.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>SC on reconsideration of death sentence under Art. 32 | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Supreme Court answered whether reconsideration of death sentence under Art. 32 of the Constitution is possible especially when it has attained finality.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/28\/supreme-court-reconsideration-of-death-sentence-under-art-32\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Whether Art. 32 of the Constitution empowers reconsideration of death sentence that has attained finality? Supreme Court answers\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court answered whether reconsideration of death sentence under Art. 32 of the Constitution is possible especially when it has attained finality.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/28\/supreme-court-reconsideration-of-death-sentence-under-art-32\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-08-28T10:00:01+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-08-29T12:44:15+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/reconsideration-of-death-sentence-under-Art.-32.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Whether Art. 32 of the Constitution empowers reconsideration of death sentence that has attained finality? Supreme Court answers\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/28\/supreme-court-reconsideration-of-death-sentence-under-art-32\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/28\/supreme-court-reconsideration-of-death-sentence-under-art-32\/\",\"name\":\"SC on reconsideration of death sentence under Art. 32 | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/28\/supreme-court-reconsideration-of-death-sentence-under-art-32\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/28\/supreme-court-reconsideration-of-death-sentence-under-art-32\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/reconsideration-of-death-sentence-under-Art.-32.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-08-28T10:00:01+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-08-29T12:44:15+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\"},\"description\":\"Supreme Court answered whether reconsideration of death sentence under Art. 32 of the Constitution is possible especially when it has attained finality.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/28\/supreme-court-reconsideration-of-death-sentence-under-art-32\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/28\/supreme-court-reconsideration-of-death-sentence-under-art-32\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/28\/supreme-court-reconsideration-of-death-sentence-under-art-32\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/reconsideration-of-death-sentence-under-Art.-32.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/reconsideration-of-death-sentence-under-Art.-32.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"reconsideration of death sentence under Art. 32\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/28\/supreme-court-reconsideration-of-death-sentence-under-art-32\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Whether Art. 32 of the Constitution empowers reconsideration of death sentence that has attained finality? Supreme Court answers\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\",\"name\":\"Sucheta\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Sucheta\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/legal_editor\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"SC on reconsideration of death sentence under Art. 32 | SCC Times","description":"Supreme Court answered whether reconsideration of death sentence under Art. 32 of the Constitution is possible especially when it has attained finality.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/28\/supreme-court-reconsideration-of-death-sentence-under-art-32\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Whether Art. 32 of the Constitution empowers reconsideration of death sentence that has attained finality? Supreme Court answers","og_description":"Supreme Court answered whether reconsideration of death sentence under Art. 32 of the Constitution is possible especially when it has attained finality.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/28\/supreme-court-reconsideration-of-death-sentence-under-art-32\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-08-28T10:00:01+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-08-29T12:44:15+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/reconsideration-of-death-sentence-under-Art.-32.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Sucheta","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Whether Art. 32 of the Constitution empowers reconsideration of death sentence that has attained finality? Supreme Court answers","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Sucheta","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/28\/supreme-court-reconsideration-of-death-sentence-under-art-32\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/28\/supreme-court-reconsideration-of-death-sentence-under-art-32\/","name":"SC on reconsideration of death sentence under Art. 32 | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/28\/supreme-court-reconsideration-of-death-sentence-under-art-32\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/28\/supreme-court-reconsideration-of-death-sentence-under-art-32\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/reconsideration-of-death-sentence-under-Art.-32.webp","datePublished":"2025-08-28T10:00:01+00:00","dateModified":"2025-08-29T12:44:15+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa"},"description":"Supreme Court answered whether reconsideration of death sentence under Art. 32 of the Constitution is possible especially when it has attained finality.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/28\/supreme-court-reconsideration-of-death-sentence-under-art-32\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/28\/supreme-court-reconsideration-of-death-sentence-under-art-32\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/28\/supreme-court-reconsideration-of-death-sentence-under-art-32\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/reconsideration-of-death-sentence-under-Art.-32.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/reconsideration-of-death-sentence-under-Art.-32.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"reconsideration of death sentence under Art. 32"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/28\/supreme-court-reconsideration-of-death-sentence-under-art-32\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Whether Art. 32 of the Constitution empowers reconsideration of death sentence that has attained finality? Supreme Court answers"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa","name":"Sucheta","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Sucheta"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/legal_editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/reconsideration-of-death-sentence-under-Art.-32.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":198279,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/07\/09\/breaking-death-penalty-to-nirbhaya-rape-case-convicts-upheld-sc\/","url_meta":{"origin":358195,"position":0},"title":"Breaking| Death penalty to &#8216;Nirbhaya&#8217; rape convicts upheld: SC","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"July 9, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: The long-awaited judgment of the Supreme Court for the death row convicts has finally been pronounced by the three-judge bench comprising of CJI Dipak Misra, R. Banumathi and\u00a0Ashok Bhushan JJ. The judgment has been authored by Ashok Bhushan J. stating that the review petition filed by the three\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Hot Off The Press&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Hot Off The Press","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/news\/hot_off_the_press\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":223430,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/12\/20\/sc-lays-down-guidelines-for-appointment-of-amicus-curiae-where-there-is-possibility-of-life-sentence-or-death-sentence\/","url_meta":{"origin":358195,"position":1},"title":"SC lays down guidelines for appointment of amicus curiae where there is possibility of life sentence or death sentence","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"December 20, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: Noticing that where death sentence could be one of the alternative punishments, the courts must be completely vigilant and see that full opportunity at every stage is afforded to the accused, the 3-judge bench of UU Lalit, Indu Malhotra and Krishna Murari, JJ has laid down the below\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":258310,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/10\/sc-awards-30-years-ri-to-man-who-killed-2-brothers-finds-imposition-of-death-penalty-on-the-day-of-conviction-itself-wrong\/","url_meta":{"origin":358195,"position":2},"title":"SC awards 30 years RI to man who killed 2 brothers &#038; nephew; Finds imposition of death penalty on the day of conviction itself, wrong\u00a0","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"December 10, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: In a case where the trial court had convicted the accused and imposed death penalty on the very same day, the 3-judge bench of L. Nageswara Rao, BR Gavai* and BV Nagarathna, JJ has converted the death sentence to life imprisonment after noticing that the trial court as\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":295486,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/06\/27\/delhi-hc-commutes-death-sentence-of-man-for-kidnapping-murder-of-12-year-old-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":358195,"position":3},"title":"\u2018Not rarest of rare case\u2019; Delhi High Court commutes death sentence of man for kidnapping and murder of 12-year-old","author":"Simranjeet","date":"June 27, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Though causing death of someone in itself is perversity, however causing death by smothering and inflicting injuries by jack handle though opined to be consistent with intense torture, cannot be held to be a diabolic or seriously perverse manner of committing murder so as to shock the collective conscience of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"delhi high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":277273,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/11\/11\/supreme-court-commutes-death-sentence-of-a-rape-and-murder-convict-due-to-ill-effects-of-10-years-of-solitary-confinement-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/","url_meta":{"origin":358195,"position":4},"title":"Supreme Court commutes death sentence of a rape and murder convict, due to ill-effects of 10 years of solitary confinement","author":"Editor","date":"November 11, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0 \u00a0 Supreme Court: In appeal against the judgment passed by the Karnataka High Court three-judge bench of Uday Umesh Lalit*, C.J., S. Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha, JJ. has held that the time taken by the authorities, in the case at hand, for the disposal of mercy petition of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image10-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image10-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image10-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image10-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/MicrosoftTeams-image10-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":290846,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/28\/unduly-lenient-sentence-shakes-public-confidence-in-the-criminal-justice-system-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/","url_meta":{"origin":358195,"position":5},"title":"\u201cUndue leniency in sentencing shakes public confidence in Criminal Justice System\u201d: Supreme Court modifies sentence in minor&#8217;s rape-murder case","author":"Ridhi","date":"April 28, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court considered the case wherein the Trial Court proposed award of death sentence for rarest of the rare case, while the Jharkhand High Court modified it to life imprisonment for whole biological life without any scope for remission.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"unduly lenient sentence","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/unduly-lenient-sentence.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/unduly-lenient-sentence.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/unduly-lenient-sentence.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/unduly-lenient-sentence.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/358195","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=358195"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/358195\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/358204"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=358195"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=358195"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=358195"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}