The Supreme Court has directed Trial Courts and High Courts to procure detailed reports on aggravating and mitigating circumstances at the earliest stages of capital sentencing to ensure a constitutionally compliant reformative approach. It has directed the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) to institutionalise specialised legal aid teams and standardised inquiry fields for gathering socio-economic and mental health data.

The Court noted the necessity of providing skilled, adequately resourced legal representation regardless of whether a convict has engaged private counsel. These dedicated teams, comprising senior counsel and experienced advocates, are tasked with conducting fieldwork and interacting with convicts’ families to present a holistic account of mitigating factors, such as background, antecedents, and psychological status, to the Court.

Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice Vijay Bishnoi while passing these directions in an appeal against a death sentence confirmed by the Patna High Court, observed, “…we are constrained to take note of a troubling trend being presented in multiple cases wherein reports on mitigating and aggravating circumstances are not being called for at the earliest stages of proceedings in a case involving a potential death sentence, namely, at the stage of sentencing before the trial Court or even at the stage of the reference for confirmation before the High Court. This omission creates a piquant situation in which such crucial material is, for the first time, sought only at the stage of appeal before this Court, thereby causing a long gap and avoidable delay in the collection of information essential for a proper, timely and informed determination on the question of sentence…”.

Devika Rawat, and Sana Vohra, Associates (Mitigation) are permitted to have access to the appellants.

The appellants, Aman Singh and Sonal Singh, were sentenced to death in a matter arising out of proceedings in Bihar. Following the confirmation of their capital punishment by the Patna High Court on January 22, 2026, the appellants moved the Supreme Court seeking relief.

The Court granted leave to appeal and stayed the execution of the death sentences pending final disposal. Finding the existing record insufficient for a final determination on sentencing, the Court summoned the original records and initiated a comprehensive mitigation investigation involving psychological evaluations and probation reports.

The Court noted a "troubling trend" where mitigating circumstances are ignored at the trial and High Court levels, forcing the Supreme Court to act as the primary investigator of a convict's character. The Bench opined that trial courts must move beyond "vague considerations" and adopt a measurable framework to assess reformation potential at the earliest opportunity.

Accordingly, the Bench, directed that:

“The report pertaining to aggravating and mitigating circumstances shall, as a matter of course, be called for by the trial Court itself once the accused is convicted, prior to the determination of sentence”.

“In the event such a report has not been called for or placed on record before the trial Court, the High Court shall mandatorily call for the same at the stage of admission of the death reference”, it directed.

Furthermore, the Court directed that Legal Services Committees must now assign a dedicated team of three advocates to every death penalty case to ensure effective assistance to the Court.

Furthermore, Legal Services Committees must now assign a dedicated team of three advocates to every death penalty case to ensure effective assistance to the Court.

NALSA has been tasked with framing guidelines for social science professionals to conduct fieldwork regarding the convict’s mental health and socio-economic conditions.

Cause Title: Aman Singh & Anr. v. State of Bihar (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 424)

Appearances:

Appellants: Devika Rawat and Sana Vohra (Mitigation Associates).

Click here to read/download the Order



Tags: