Effective legal aid in criminal appeal requires notice, preparation time, and chance for amicus to meet the convict before hearing

Held:The Supreme Court held that legal aid to an accused or convict cannot be reduced to a mere ritual or token formality, and must be a meaningful and effective opportunity of representation. Where an amicus curiae is appointed because the convict’s counsel is absent, the amicus must be given reasonable time to prepare and adequate opportunity to meet and confer with the accused or convict, especially when the convict is in custody. The Court reiterated that while the High Court may appoint an amicus to ensure that a criminal appeal is heard, the appeal cannot be decided in a manner that deprives the incarcerated appellant of effective legal assistance.

Summary: The appellant had been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment for a murder allegedly committed on 16.10.2020. His appeal before the Madhya Pradesh High Court was listed on 20.11.2025, but since no one appeared on his behalf, the High Court appointed an amicus curiae and listed the case for the following week. The amicus argued the matter on 26.11.2025, and the High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and sentence. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that he was in custody throughout, had not been informed that his advocate was absent or that an amicus had been appointed, and that the amicus had no opportunity to meet or consult him before arguing the appeal. The Supreme Court accepted that nothing on record showed notice or communication to the appellant and held that although the High Court acted bona fide to avoid delay, effective legal aid required more than formal representation. Relying on Anokhi Lal and Bhola Mahto, the Court held that the amicus should have been given reasonable time to prepare and an opportunity to confer with the appellant.

Decision: The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s order dated 26.11.2025, and revived the appellant’s criminal appeal before the High Court for a de novo hearing. The Court directed that the appeal be listed within two months and preferably before the same Division Bench, subject to availability, or before a Bench including at least one of the earlier judges if possible. Since the appellant wished to be represented by his own counsel, the Court directed that no amicus need be appointed if his counsel appears after one week’s advance notice from the Registry. All points on merits were kept open, and the High Court was directed to decide the appeal uninfluenced by earlier observations. The appellant was directed to remain in custody until the High Court decides the appeal on merits, and pending applications were disposed of.