4 min readNew DelhiApr 29, 2026 02:18 AM IST
Reiterating that reformation is a foundational goal of criminal punishment, the Supreme Court has issued nation-wide directions to be followed in cases involving potential death sentences, including consideration of mitigating circumstances at trial court-level itself.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and Vijay Bishnoi said in its April 27 order said 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”.
It said “in the event such a report has not been called for or placed on record before the trial court, the HC shall mandatorily call for same at the stage of admission of the death reference”.
The bench said that “the concerned authorities shall ensure that such reports are comprehensive, duly verified, and furnished within a stipulated timeframe so as to avoid any delay in the adjudicatory process, and to aid and enable the courts to undertake a meaningful, informed, and constitutionally compliant sentencing exercise.”
It said that “upon receipt of such a report, the court concerned shall afford adequate opportunity to the parties to peruse the same and to advance oral submissions thereon. In cases where the reports procured by the trial court are found to be ineffective or lacking in proper details, the High Court would be at liberty to call for a fresh report”.
The order came in a matter in which it stayed the death sentence of a man lodged in Bihar’s Buxar jail. The court allowed two persons associated with Square Circle Clinic, NALSAR University of Law, to submit a Mitigation Investigation Report in respect of convict within 20 weeks.
The bench also said though it had in the past underlined the need for trial courts to consider mitigating circumstances before sentencing, “the absence of a structured and measurable framework, coupled with the inadequate implementation of meaningful prison reforms, has significantly hampered the system’s ability to achieve genuine rehabilitation”.
Story continues below this ad
But this was not happening, the court said, adding “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”.
The bench said that “delayed consideration of these factors undermines the very objective of a balanced sentencing process and impedes the meaningful application of reformative principles”. The SC said that besides this, “in a significant number of cases involving a potential death sentence, the quality of defence afforded to the accused remains inadequate, resulting in ineffective legal representation at crucial stages of the proceedings”.
To remedy this and ensure meaningful legal representation to every such convict, the court said “in every death sentence confirmation reference brought before the High Courts and this Court, the Legal Services Committee concerned shall assign a dedicated legal team comprising one Senior Counsel and at least two advocates having a minimum of 7 years practice, to represent the convicted person”.
The bench said “such representation shall be provided regardless of whether the convict has private counsel… in death penalty cases, which require a careful balance of justice, societal concerns…”
© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
