Appellate courts must notify convicts on bail before appointing Amicus Curiae due to non-appearance of engaged counsel.

The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC on November 25, 2002, for a murder committed in October 2000

He filed an appeal in the High Court of Jharkhand in 2003 and was released on bail on March 10, 2003

The appeal remained unlisted for 20 years. When finally listed in November 2024, the appellant’s counsel failed to appear

The High Court appointed an amicus curiae, heard the matter, and on December 2, 2024, altered the conviction to Section 304 Part-II IPC, sentencing the appellant to five years of rigorous imprisonment

The appellant challenged this before the Supreme Court, contending he was unaware of his counsel’s absence or the appointment of the amicus

A report from the Registrar General confirmed that no notice was issued to the appellant regarding the counsel's absence or the amicus appointment

1. Whether the High Court's decision to decide the appeal with an amicus curiae without notifying the appellant of his counsel’s absence violated the guarantee of a fair trial

2. Whether the appellant is entitled to a de novo hearing of the appeal on grounds that the amicus did not urge the specific grounds raised in the original memorandum of appeal

The Court applied the principles of fair trial and meaningful legal aid as enshrined in the Constitution and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (specifically Section 374(2))

It relied heavily on the precedent of Anokhi Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2019) 20 SCC 196, which establishes that while expeditious disposal is necessary, it must not occur at the expense of basic elements of fairness and the opportunity for the accused to be heard

The Court also referenced Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC regarding "sudden fight" to evaluate the High Court's alteration of the conviction

The Court observed that while the High Court’s intention to expedite a two-decade-old appeal was justified, the procedure adopted lacked "desirable precaution"

The Court noted that legal assistance must be "real and meaningful" and not a "token gesture"

Since the appeal was listed for the first time in 21 years, the appellant should have been informed of his counsel’s non-appearance before the court proceeded with an amicus

However, the Supreme Court rejected the appellant's request to argue for an acquittal directly, noting that a party cannot raise new grounds for the first time in the apex court that were not pressed in the High Court

To prevent future technical pleas, the Court laid down a new procedure: if a counsel is absent, the Registry should issue notice to the convict's address through the jurisdictional police station, allowing the convict to instruct the amicus or engage new counsel. If the convict remains dormant after such notice, the High Court may then proceed to decide the appeal on merits

The matter was remanded to the High Court for a de novo hearing, preferably before the same Division Bench

The Court ordered that the appellant be released on bail forthwith, restoring the status quo ante, and directed that his liberty should not be curtailed until the disposal of the revived appeal

The Court held that fast-tracking judicial processes must never result in "burying the cause of justice"