Supreme Court Directs High Courts To Notify Convicts Before Appointing Amicus Curiae To Represent Them

The Supreme Court has advised that appellate courts should, as a matter of prudence, notify a convict before appointing an amicus curiae to represent them in a criminal appeal, particularly in situations where the convict’s counsel is absent. The Court noted that notifying the convict beforehand prevents claims of appeals being decided without their knowledge.

The Supreme Court was hearing an appeal challenging the Jharkhand High Court’s judgment, which had overturned the appellant’s conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, reduced it to a conviction under Section 304 Part II, and sentenced him to five years of rigorous imprisonment.

The bench, comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, observed that the High Court erred in not notifying the appellant about his representation by the amicus curiae. The Court stated that “justice would have been better served if an intimation by way of a notice had been sent” to the appellant, emphasizing that legal assistance should be genuine and meaningful, rather than a mere formality or token gesture.

The Bench further noted, “we find that the High Court in its anxiety to deliver justice without further delay and to decide the appeal expeditiously upon hearing the learned amicus, had not made an attempt to inform the appellant that his appeal having been listed for final hearing (after two decades) and there being absence of representation from his side, (on the first day) an amicus had been appointed to represent him. The High Court was under no obligation to inform the appellant of his counsel’s absence; however, it would have been a desirable precaution if the appellant were so informed.”

The Court observed that convicts released on bail often avoid court proceedings to protect their liberty and sometimes become untraceable. Such misuse of bail, they noted, must be dealt with firmly. The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal and directed that the appellant’s case be restored to the High Court for a fresh hearing.