Legal aid must be meaningful, not mere formality: Supreme Court

It said the court has laid two principles to be followed in case an amicus is appointed.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has emphasised that legal aid provided to an accused or convict must not be reduced to a mere ritual or token formality, but should ensure effective and substantive assistance of counsel.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma made the observation while partly allowing an appeal filed by Nandkishore Mishra, setting aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s judgment of November 26, 2025, which had confirmed his conviction and life sentence in a 2020 murder case.

The High Court had decided the appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC by appointing an amicus curiae after the appellant’s counsel failed to appear. 

The apex court found that the process followed by the High Court fell short of ensuring meaningful legal representation.

Mishra’s counsel argued before the Supreme Court that the appellant was denied a fair opportunity. 

He contended that while the appellant was in custody, the High Court neither informed him about the appointment of the amicus nor gave the amicus sufficient time to prepare or consult with the client. 

The amicus was appointed on November 20, 2025, and the appeal was dismissed just six days later on November 26, 2025.

The bench noted that there was nothing on record to show that any notice was served on the appellant regarding the hearing or the appointment of the amicus. 

“In the absence of any such material, we are constrained to draw an adverse inference and accept the submission of the appellant in this regard,” the Court observed, in its judgment on May 22, 2026.

The court acknowledged the bona fide intention of the High Court in disposing of the appeal expeditiously but said a formal notice to the appellant and adequate time for the amicus to interact with the convict would have better served the ends of justice, especially since the appellant remained incarcerated.

The bench stressed that the High Court was not obligated to inform the appellant, but it would have been a “prudent and desirable step.”

Relying on its earlier decisions in Bhola Mahto vs State of Jharkhand (2026) and Anokhi Lal vs State of Madhya Pradesh (2019), the court reiterated that an amicus curiae must be given reasonable time to prepare and must have an opportunity to meet and confer with the accused/convict.

“Admittedly, neither of these directions appear to have been complied with in the present case,” the bench said.

The court underscored that judicial time is valuable and finite, and directions issued in previous cases on legal aid must be followed scrupulously.

Setting aside the High Court’s judgment, the apex court ordered a fresh hearing of the appeal by the same bench of the High Court, subject to their availability. 

Noting that the appellant is a septuagenarian, the court urged the High Court to decide the appeal expeditiously from the date of first hearing. All contentions on merits have been kept open.The appellant shall remain in custody till the disposal of the appeal on its own merits, it ordered.