SC rolls back blanket rule on death-penalty reports

By: Hindustan Times

Published: 24 October 2026

Photo / Illustration: Haldwani Times News Desk

The Supreme Court has withdrawn its direction requiring trial and high courts to call for reports on aggravating and mitigating circumstances in every case involving an offence punishable with death, acknowledging that the exercise could prove unworkable in cases where the court does not even contemplate imposing capital punishment. The Supreme Court withdrew its direction to seek reports on aggravating and mitigating factors in every death penalty case, citing practical difficulties when capital punishment is not being considered. (HT_PRINT)A three-judge bench of justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and Aparesh Kumar Singh accepted a clarification plea by the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) and deleted a key direction issued by the court on April 27, 2026, which had sought to institutionalise a comprehensive assessment of the circumstances surrounding both the crime and the offender before sentencing. The court agreed with NALSA’s submission that requiring trial courts to obtain such reports in every death-eligible case could create procedural difficulties, particularly since they might not have the resources or facilities to undertake the extensive exercise. It also recognised that many such cases may not lead the trial court to consider a death sentence at all. “Having considered the submissions advanced, we are in agreement with the submission of Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar (NALSA’s counsel),” said the bench in its recent order, directing deletion of the impugned paragraph and ordering that a corrigendum be issued and the corrected order circulated to all concerned. The April order had required trial and high courts to call for reports on aggravating and mitigating circumstances as a matter of course once an accused was convicted, before determining the sentence. The direction was part of a wider set of measures aimed at ensuring that courts had a complete picture of the convict’s background and prospects of reform before deciding whether the death penalty was warranted. To be sure, the latest order, passed in a murder case from Bihar, does not delete the separate direction requiring high courts to call for such reports at the admission stage of a death reference if they have not been obtained or placed on record by the trial court. The other directions concerning comprehensive reports, dedicated legal teams for death-penalty cases and mitigation investigations also remain in place. The April directive was issued after the Supreme Court flagged a recurring failure to collect material on aggravating and mitigating circumstances at the trial stage or during the high court’s consideration of a death reference. It noted that such information was often sought only after the matter reached the Supreme Court, resulting in avoidable delays and undermining a meaningful assessment of the appropriate sentence. The court had also expressed concern over inadequate legal representation in capital cases, observing that ineffective defence and laxity in trial proceedings could deprive courts of the balanced information necessary for a just sentencing decision. The question of balancing aggravating and mitigating circumstances is central to India’s death-penalty jurisprudence. In Bachan Singh Vs State of Punjab (1980), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of capital punishment while restricting its imposition to the “rarest of rare” cases, where life imprisonment is unquestionably inadequate. It held that the circumstances of the offender must be considered alongside those of the crime and that mitigating circumstances must receive full weight before a court opts for death. Mitigating factors may include the age and mental condition of the accused, the circumstances in which the offence was committed, the possibility of reform and rehabilitation, and the offender’s social and family background. Aggravating circumstances, by contrast, concern factors that heighten the gravity of the crime and the offender’s culpability. The exercise is intended to prevent the brutality of an offence from eclipsing the question of whether the offender can be reformed. In Manoj and others Vs State of Madhya Pradesh (2022), the Supreme Court underscored the need for a meaningful sentencing hearing and systematic collection of information about a convict’s background, mental health, family circumstances, social milieu and conduct in prison. It highlighted the absence of a structured framework to assess the possibility of reform and called for a more informed, individualised approach to capital sentencing. The judgment also exposed how courts could be left to decide the question of life or death without adequate material about the person facing the sentence. Building on these concerns, the April 2026 order in the Bihar case directed state authorities and prison officials to submit reports on the appellants’ conduct and work in jail, as well as psychological evaluations. It also permitted mitigation investigators associated with the Square Circle Clinic at NALSAR University of Law to interview the appellants confidentially and prepare detailed reports, drawing on records relating to their medical history, education, employment and other relevant circumstances. The court had further directed legal services committees to appoint dedicated legal teams comprising a senior counsel and at least two advocates with a minimum of seven years’ practice in death-sentence confirmation proceedings, regardless of whether the convict had engaged private counsel. NALSA was tasked with framing guidelines identifying relevant areas of enquiry and facilitating mitigation investigations through trained legal and social science professionals. Utkarsh Anand is the National Legal Editor at Hindustan Times, where he leads the newspaper's coverage of the Supreme Court, constitutional law, the judiciary and the Union law ministry. He joined Hindustan Times in 2020 after stints at Press Trust of India (PTI), The Indian Express and CNN-News18, and has over two decades of experience reporting on law, governance and public policy. His work has focussed on some of India's most consequential constitutional and legal developments, including the Supreme Court's judgments on Article 370, marriage equality, decriminalisation of homosexuality, the Babri Masjid dispute, electoral reforms and judicial appointments. He specialises in making complex legal proceedings and judgments accessible to readers while examining their wider social and political impact. Beyond daily reportage, Utkarsh has led investigative projects and enterprise reporting that have shaped public debate and prompted institutional responses. His work has received several journalism awards, including the Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Award. As National Legal Editor, he has also played a key role in expanding Hindustan Times' legal journalism footprint, mentoring reporters and strengthening coverage across platforms. A Chevening South Asia Journalism Programme Fellow, Utkarsh regularly writes analyses on the judiciary and constitutional issues, and his reporting is widely followed by lawyers, judges, policymakers, academics and readers seeking clarity on India's evolving legal landscape.Read More

Haldwani Times

The leading digital news publication, business directory, and civic journal dedicated to Haldwani, Kathgodam, Nainital, and the entire Kumaon region of Devbhoomi Uttarakhand.

Registered Editorial Office: Tikonia Chauraha, Nainital Road, Haldwani, Uttarakhand 263139