Notify Convicts Before Appointing Amicus To Represent Them In Appeals : Supreme Court Advises Courts

The Supreme Court has advised that it would be prudent for the Appellate Courts to notify a convict before appointing an amicus curiae to represent them in their criminal appeal when their counsel is absent.The Court observed that such an intimation will obviate situations of a convict later complaining that the appeal was decided by hearing an amicus without their knowledge.The ruling came in a case where the appellant's appeal remained pending for over two decades after he was released on bail. When the matter was finally listed, no counsel appeared for him and the High Court appointed an amicus curiae, who argued the case and secured partial relief by converting a conviction under Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC.Before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that he had not been informed about the absence of his counsel or the appointment of the amicus, and that the grounds raised in his appeal were not argued. While the Court declined to entertain fresh grounds for acquittal at this stage, it acknowledged that the High Court had not attempted to inform the appellant before proceeding.The bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma noted a lapse on the part of the High Court to notify the Appellant, about his representation by the Amicus, stating that “justice would have been better served if an intimation by way of a notice been sent” to the Appellant as the “assistance in the form of legal aid should be real and meaningful and not by way of a token gesture or to complete an idle formality”.To curb the tendency of convicts to raise technical pleas, such as the failure to notify them of the appointment of an amicus, the Court, building on the norms laid down in Anokhi Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2019), prescribed the following procedural framework.“First, whenever an appellate court considers it desirable to appoint an amicus to represent a convict whose counsel is absent, such court may also consider the desirability of issuing a notice from the registry to the address of the convict mentioned in the memorandum of appeal, for such notice to be served on him through the jurisdictional police station, with an intimation that the convict may contact the learned amicus and provide him necessary instructions so that his case is argued before the court effectively and meaningfully. In the event the convict contacts the amicus and provides instructions, there would ordinarily be no impediment in proceeding with hearing of the appeal.Second, If, indeed, the convict desires to have his own counsel argue the appeal on his behalf and not the amicus, the court may hear such counsel in addition to the amicus. Third, However, if the service report indicates that the convict was not found at the address or that he refused to accept notice despite being present, it would amount to sufficient compliance if the notice is pasted on the outer wall of the premises, address whereof is mentioned in the cause title of the memorandum of appeal. Fourth, Should the convict still remain dormant, and it is so reported, the High Court may proceed to decide the appeal without waiting for the convict to turn up either in person or through the counsel of his choice engaged by him.”This process, the Court viewed, would substantially serve the purpose of eliminating any plea of unfairness being raised before the Supreme Court if an appeal is disposed of upon hearing the amicus appointed by the court.“Additionally, in a case of like nature where the appeal is listed two decades after grant of bail, this process would ensure obtaining of information as to whether the appeal survives for decision or stands abated. In case of the latter, the courts could avoid spending precious judicial time deciding an appeal which, by operation of law, may not require a decision on merits. Of course, for a convict in custody who has committed an offence punishable with death or life imprisonment, the directions in Anokhi Lal (supra) have to be scrupulously followed apart from the relevant rules regulating the business of the courts concerned.”, the court observed.In Anokhi Lal, the Supreme Court had mandated that only advocates with a minimum experience of 10 years must be appointed as amicus in criminal appeals involving offences punishable by life sentence or death.Convicts who misuse sentence suspension must be firmly dealt withThe Supreme Court also voices concerns about situations where convicts, released on bail due to suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C., remain absent during appellate hearings. “It is a matter of common knowledge that once a convict obtains an order from the appellate court suspending the sentence of imprisonment and is, consequently, released on bail, more often than not, he neglects and/or fails to cooperate with the court and impedes an expeditious decision on his appeal by staying away from the proceedings with a view to ensure that his liberty is not curtailed, if...

Notify Convicts Before Appointing Amicus To Represent Them In Appeals : Supreme Court Advises Courts

Yash Mittal

Tags