The Supreme Court of India has stayed the execution of the death sentence awarded to two appellants while issuing a series of mandatory directions to reform the process of collecting mitigating and aggravating circumstances in capital punishment cases. A Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta, and Vijay Bishnoi expressed concern over the “troubling trend” of delayed sentencing information, emphasizing that such data must be presented at the earliest possible stage.
Background of the Case
The proceedings arose from a judgment and order dated January 22, 2026, passed by the High Court of Patna in Death Reference No. 2/2024 and Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 691 of 2024. Following the High Court’s confirmation of the death penalty, the appellants approached the Supreme Court via a Special Leave Petition. Upon hearing the matter, the Court granted leave and ordered that the execution of the death sentence remain stayed pending the final disposal of the appeals.
Court’s Analysis: Addressing Procedural Lapses in Sentencing
The Court observed that despite the foundational goal of reformation, the absence of a structured framework has hampered the system’s ability to achieve genuine rehabilitation. Referring to the precedent in Manoj and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023) 2 SCC 353, the Bench underscored the necessity for Trial Courts to consider mitigating circumstances at the earliest stage to avoid a “purely retributive response driven by the brutality of the crime.”
The Bench noted with concern that reports on mitigating circumstances are often sought for the first time only at the appellate stage before the Supreme Court. The Court stated:
“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.”
Furthermore, the Court highlighted that the quality of defense in capital cases is frequently inadequate. It observed that “lackadaisical investigation and slackness in trial proceedings” often lead to a lack of data regarding mitigating factors, which “deprives the Courts of a complete and balanced perspective necessary for a just determination.”
The Decision and Mandatory Directions
The Court issued two sets of directions: specific orders for the current case and general guidelines for all future capital cases.
Case-Specific Directions:
- Stay of Execution: The death sentence of the appellants is stayed pending the appeal.
- Probation and Jail Reports: The State of Bihar and the Superintendent of Buxar Jail must submit reports on the appellants’ conduct, nature of work performed in jail, and probation reports within 16 weeks.
- Psychological Evaluation: The Superintendent of Buxar Jail is directed to conduct a psychological evaluation of the appellants through a Government Medical Hospital.
- Mitigation Investigation: The Court permitted mitigation experts Ms. Devika Rawat and Ms. Sana Vohra to conduct multiple in-person interviews with the appellants in Buxar Jail to submit a Mitigation Investigation Report within 20 weeks. These interviews are to be conducted in a separate space without prison officials within earshot to ensure confidentiality.
General Guidelines for Death Penalty Cases:
- Mandatory Reports at Trial: Trial Courts must, as a matter of course, call for reports on aggravating and mitigating circumstances once an accused is convicted, prior to determination of sentence.
- High Court’s Duty: If such reports are missing from the Trial Court record, the High Court shall mandatorily call for them at the stage of admission of the death reference.
- Dedicated Legal Teams: For every death sentence confirmation reference, Legal Services Committees shall assign a dedicated team comprising one Senior Counsel and at least two advocates with minimum 7 years of practice. This representation shall be provided even if the convict has private counsel.
- NALSA Guidelines: The National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) is directed to frame guidelines for gathering mitigating information, including fieldwork involving the convict’s family and socio-economic background.
The Registry has been directed to communicate this order to all High Courts and Legal Services Authorities for immediate compliance. The matter is scheduled to be heard again after twenty weeks.
Case Details
- Case Title: Aman Singh & Anr. v. State of Bihar
- Case No.: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl) Diary No. 24574 of 2026
- Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice Vijay Bishnoi
- Date: April 27, 2026
