The Supreme Court has disapproved of dismissing appeals on technical grounds like the absence of a delay condonation application when the litigant was not having proper legal assistance. It is the duty of the Courts to ensure quality legal assistance to the litigants.

“True that the appeal should have been accompanied with an application for condonation of delay, but the Constitutional Courts should also be alive to the travails of a litigant and if the legal assistance is not adequate, it has a duty to provide quality legal assistance to the litigants, whether it be a victim or an accused.”, observed a bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, while setting aside the Rajasthan High Court's decision which had dismissed the appeal against an acquittal in a dowry death case merely for want of an application seeking condonation of delay with an appeal.

The victim's mother filed the appeal against the accused's acquittal before the High Court with a 19-day delay. The High Court dismissed the appeal for failing to file a delay condonation application with the appeal and lack of representation on behalf of the Appellant.

Disagreeing with the High Court's approach, the Court noted that the High Court should have heard the appeal on merit, without dismissing the same for want of a delay condonation application. Moreover, the Court said that when the Appellant was not adequately represented before the High Court, the High Court should have appointed an Amicus or an Advocate from the Legal Services Authority to represent the Appellant.

“In the totality of the circumstances as also considering the minimal delay occasioned, we are of the opinion that the High Court should hear the matter on merits…We set aside the order of the High Court and restore the appeal to its files. We request the High Court to hear the matter on its merits.”, the Court observed.

As a result, the appeal was allowed.

Cause Title: Ummed Devi Versus The State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 878

Click here to download order

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sumit Teterrwal, AOR Mr. Chinmay Sharma, Adv. Mr. Hemant Arya, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Ms. Aneesha Rashtogi, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Rajpal, AOR Mr. Ankit Anandraj Shah, AOR Mr. Abhinav Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Ankit Tiwari, Adv.