The Supreme Court has deleted its earlier direction requiring trial courts to obtain reports on aggravating and mitigating circumstances in every case involving an offence punishable with death. The Court accepted the National Legal Services Authority’s (NALSA) submission that a blanket requirement could create procedural difficulties, particularly in cases where the trial court does not contemplate imposing the death penalty.

A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh passed the order on October 7, 2026, while allowing NALSA’s application seeking clarification of the directions issued on April 27, 2026.

Background of the April 27 Directions

On April 27, 2026, the Supreme Court issued directions aimed at ensuring that relevant information concerning aggravating and mitigating circumstances is collected at the appropriate stage of death penalty proceedings.

The Court had expressed concern that such reports were frequently not obtained during the trial or while the High Court considered a death reference. Consequently, important information relevant to sentencing was often collected for the first time when the matter reached the Supreme Court, resulting in avoidable delays and affecting the balanced determination of sentences.

The Court had directed trial courts to obtain these reports after conviction and before determining the sentence. Where the reports had not been obtained or placed on record before the trial court, the High Court was required to call for them at the stage of admission of the death reference.

NALSA's Submission

NALSA subsequently approached the Supreme Court seeking clarification of the directions. Advocate Rashmi Nandakumar, appearing for NALSA, submitted that requiring reports on aggravating and mitigating circumstances in every case involving an offence punishable with death could lead to unnecessary procedural burdens.

It was argued that there could be several cases in which the trial court did not even contemplate imposing the death penalty. Nevertheless, the earlier direction would require the court to undertake the exercise of obtaining such reports.

NALSA also highlighted that trial courts might not have the necessary resources and facilities to carry out such an extensive exercise in every case.

Supreme Court's Decision

Accepting NALSA's submissions, the Bench deleted paragraph 13(A) of its April 27, 2026, order, which mandated trial courts to call for reports on aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

The Court observed:

“We are in agreement with the submission of Ms. Nandakumar. Directions contained in Para No. 13(A) of the order dated 27th April, 2026 which mandate the trial Courts to call for the report of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, deserves to be and is hereby deleted.”

The Court further directed that a corrigendum be issued and the corrected copy of the April 27 order be circulated to all concerned after deleting paragraph 13(A).

Other Directions Remain Unchanged

The Supreme Court clarified the scope of its earlier directions without disturbing the remaining safeguards concerning sentencing in death penalty cases.

The following directions continue to remain in force:

• High Courts to obtain reports: Where reports on aggravating and mitigating circumstances have not been obtained or placed on record before the trial court, the High Court must call for them at the admission stage of the death reference.
• Comprehensive and verified reports: The reports must be comprehensive, duly verified and submitted within the stipulated timeframe. The parties must be given an opportunity to examine the reports and make submissions.
• Dedicated legal representation: Legal Services Committees must assign dedicated legal teams comprising one Senior Advocate and at least two advocates with a minimum of seven years' practice in death sentence confirmation proceedings, irrespective of whether the convict has engaged private counsel.
• Dedicated panels in High Courts: Each High Court must maintain a dedicated panel of advocates for handling death reference matters.
• Mitigation investigation guidelines: NALSA must frame guidelines for gathering information concerning the convict's background, socio-economic circumstances, mental health and other relevant factors to enable a comprehensive assessment of the possibility of reformation and rehabilitation.

The decision modifies the blanket obligation imposed on trial courts while retaining the remaining procedural safeguards intended to ensure a fair, informed and balanced sentencing process in death penalty cases.