Para 13(A) of the Supreme Court’s April 27 order is gone: trial courts no longer have to call for mitigation reports in every death-eligible case, though the requirement for High Courts stays.
New Delhi: Accepting a clarification application by the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA), the Supreme Court has deleted its direction that trial courts obtain mitigation reports on aggravating and mitigating circumstances in every case involving an offence punishable with death [Aman Singh and Another v. State of Bihar].
By an order of October 7, 2026, a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and Aparesh Kumar Singh removed Para 13(A) from the order of April 27, 2026 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 2351-52 of 2026. A corrigendum is to be issued, and a corrected copy of the April 27 order circulated to all concerned.
NALSA’s case for deletion
Advocate Rashmi Nandakumar, for NALSA, submitted that many trial courts hearing cases where death is only a possible punishment never actually contemplate imposing it, yet the direction would make them collect the reports anyway. Trial courts, she also pointed out, may lack the resources and facilities for so extensive an exercise. The Bench agreed and deleted the paragraph.
What stays in force
The remainder of the April 27 framework is untouched. High Courts must call for the reports when admitting a death reference, if they were not placed before the trial court. Reports must be comprehensive, verified and furnished within a fixed time, and parties may examine them and make submissions. For death sentence confirmation proceedings, Legal Services Committees must appoint dedicated teams of one Senior Counsel and at least two advocates with seven or more years of practice, whether or not the convict has a private lawyer. Each High Court must keep a panel of advocates for death reference matters, and NALSA is to frame guidelines for mitigation investigations.
The April 27 order, briefly
That order grew out of a concern that reports on a convict’s background, socio-economic conditions and mental health were often not obtained at trial or during the High Court’s death reference.
As a result, key sentencing material surfaced for the first time before the Supreme Court and caused avoidable delay. The Court had accordingly directed trial courts to obtain such reports after conviction and before sentencing, and High Courts to obtain them at the admission of a death reference if they were not already on record.
A narrower, not a weaker, push
The Court has trimmed, not withdrawn, its push for structured mitigation material in capital cases. Under the rarest-of-rare framework, a court choosing between death and life imprisonment must weigh the circumstances of the crime together with those of the offender, and the April 27 directions were meant to get that evidence before courts early.
With the mandatory exercise now confined to the High Court stage, where a death sentence has actually been imposed and a reference is pending, the Court has met the practical concern that a blanket trial-court duty would burden courts in cases where capital punishment is never in issue.
Case Title: Aman Singh and Another v. State of Bihar [Criminal Appeal Nos. 2351-52 of 2026, arising out of SLP (Criminal) Nos. 8408-09 of 2026; I.A. No. 276673 of 2026]
Bench: Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and Aparesh Kumar Singh, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: October 7, 2026
Appearance: Advocate Rashmi Nandakumar for the National Legal Services Authority