Effective Legal Representation Requires Meaningful Opportunity for Amicus Curiae to Confer With Incarcerated Appellants

The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court on December 20, 2022, for a murder committed in 2020.

During the pendency of his appeal before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, his engaged counsel failed to appear on November 20, 2025.

Consequently, the High Court appointed an amicus curiae to assist the court.

Without notifying the appellant of his counsel's absence or the appointment of the amicus, the High Court heard the matter and dismissed the appeal six days later, on November 26, 2025, affirming the conviction.

The appellant challenged this in the Supreme Court, contending he was denied an effective opportunity of being heard as the amicus had no time to confer with him in custody.

Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, concerning the right to appeal a conviction.

The Court emphasizes the constitutional and procedural mandate that legal aid must not be a "mere ritual or a token formality" but a substantive exercise.

The Court strictly followed the precedents of Anokhi Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2019) and Bhola Mahto v. State of Jharkhand (2026), which establish that an amicus must be afforded reasonable time to prepare the matter and must be granted an adequate opportunity to meet and confer with the accused/convict.

The Supreme Court noted that while the High Court’s intention to expedite justice was bona fide, it failed to fulfill the qualitative requirements of legal representation.

The Court observed that the amicus was appointed only six days before the final disposal and had no interaction with the appellant, who was lodged in a correctional home.

Relying on Anokhi Lal, the Court reasoned that the lack of communication between the appellant and the amicus rendered the assistance ineffective.

The Bench drew an adverse inference against the State as there was no record of notice being served on the appellant regarding the consideration of his appeal.

The Court concluded that judicial expediency cannot override the "prudent and desirable" step of ensuring the accused knows who is representing them, especially when incarcerated.

The Court held that the mandatory directions in Anokhi Lal regarding reasonable preparation time and consultation for amici were not followed.

It directed the High Court to revive the appeal, notify the appellant's counsel a week in advance, and reach a decision expeditiously, preferably within two months, while keeping the appellant in custody pending the disposal. The appeal was partly allowed.