India | Senior advocates to represent death row convicts: Supreme Court lays down directions for death penalty cases

The Court flagged the failure of trial courts to call for reports on mitigating circumstances and lack of meaningful representation in death penalty cases.

The Supreme Court on Monday issued pan-India directions governing how courts must handle death penalty cases. [Aman Singh & Anr v. State of Bihar]

A three-judge Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and Vijay Bishnoi passed the directions while hearing an appeal filed by a convict challenging a judgment of the Patna High Court, which had upheld the death penalty awarded to him in a murder case.

The Court also stayed the execution of the death sentence awarded to the appellant. It clarified that the execution shall remain stayed till the final disposal of the appeal.

The Bench noted serious systemic gaps in the manner in which mitigating circumstances are collected and evaluated in capital sentencing.

It highlighted concerns with existing sentencing practices and said that the absence of a consistent and structured mechanism has resulted in an imbalanced approach to sentencing.

The Court then laid down a set of directions to be followed across the country in death penalty cases:

• Trial courts must mandatorily call for reports on aggravating and mitigating circumstances immediately after conviction and before sentencing. Where such reports are not before the trial court, High Courts must call for them at the stage of admission of a death reference. Authorities must ensure that these reports are comprehensive, duly verified and submitted within a fixed timeline so as to avoid delays.
• Legal Services Committees must appoint a dedicated legal team comprising one senior counsel and at least two advocates with a minimum of seven years’ experience to represent the convict. This assistance will be provided even where the convict has private counsel, to ensure effective representation in capital cases.
• Each High Court shall constitute and maintain a dedicated panel of advocates to handle death reference matters.
• National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) to frame guidelines for collecting mitigating circumstances and to engage trained teams to collect mitigating information on the convict.

Apart from these general directions, the Court issued specific directions in the present case.

The case arises from a land dispute between the parties in village Khudrao, where the accused attacked the victims after a quarrel over possession of land. The assault then escalated into a brutal attack, resulting in the death of three persons.

The trial court convicted the accused under Section 302 (murder) and Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced them to death.

The High Court had upheld both the conviction and the sentence in a death reference proceeding.

Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court, however, flagged a “troubling trend” in death penalty cases.

“...Reports on mitigating and aggravating circumstances are often not called for at the earliest stages, either at sentencing before the trial court or at the stage of confirmation before the High Court,” the Bench observed.

The Court added that delayed consideration of these factors undermines the objective of a balanced sentencing process and impedes the meaningful application of reformative principles.

The Bench also flagged concerns over inadequate legal representation in death penalty cases.

It further noted that poor defence and lax trial proceedings often result in little effort to collect mitigating and aggravating material.

It observed that such deficiencies undermine fairness and increase the risk of disproportionate sentencing.

“This state of affairs renders it expedient to strengthen the legal aid framework in such cases by ensuring the provision of skilled and adequately resourced legal representation, so that the accused is effectively assisted,” the Court observed.

The Court directed that its order be communicated to all High Courts and legal services authorities for compliance.

The matter has now been listed for further hearing after 20 weeks.

Senior Advocate Pramod Kumar Dubey with Advocates Saurav Agrawal, Ravi Sharma, Madhulika Rai Sharma, Pinky Dubey, Satyam Sharma, Anjani Kumar Rai, Prachi Dubey, Arya Bhat, Anadi Mishra, Samrat Kasana, Shivangi Mishra, Suchitra Kumbhat, Abhilash Pathak, Mukesh Kumar Tiwari, Ajit Kumar Upadhyay, Satish Kumar Shukla and Amrita Vatsa appeared for the petitioner.

Source: barandbench.com, Ritu Yadav, April 28, 2026

"One is absolutely sickened, not by the crimes that the wicked have committed,
but by the punishments that the good have inflicted."

— Oscar Wilde

Death Penalty News For a World without the Death Penalty