Supreme Court Orders Courts to Notify Convicts Before Appointing Amicus Curiae in Criminal Appeals — UPSC Current Affairs | March 19, 2026
Supreme Court Orders Courts to Notify Convicts Before Appointing Amicus Curiae in Criminal Appeals
The Supreme Court, in a recent judgment (BHOLA MAHTO vs. State of Jharkhand, 2026), directed appellate courts to notify convicts before appointing an <span class="key-term" data-definition="Amicus curiae — a court‑appointed lawyer who assists the court when a party lacks representation; important for ensuring fair trial and legal aid (GS2: Polity)">amicus curiae</span> in criminal appeals. The Court also reiterated procedural safeguards from <i>Anokhi Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh</i> to prevent technical pleas and curb misuse of bail under <span class="key-term" data-definition="Section 389 Cr.P.C. — provision allowing suspension of sentence and release on bail; relevant to criminal procedure and rights (GS2: Polity)">Section 389 Cr.P.C.</span>.
Supreme Court Directs Notification Before Appointing Amicus Curiae The Supreme Court has issued a procedural guideline to ensure that convicts are informed before a court appoints an amicus curiae in their criminal appeals. The direction arose from a case where an appellant’s appeal lingered for over two decades, and the High Court proceeded without informing him. Key Developments The bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma highlighted the need for a notice to be served to the convict via the jurisdictional police station. A procedural framework, building on Anokhi Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2019) , was laid down to handle absent counsel and amicus appointments. The Court emphasized that convicts misusing bail under Section 389 Cr.P.C. must face firm judicial action. Procedural Framework (as prescribed) When an appellate court deems it necessary to appoint an amicus , it should issue a notice to the convict’s address mentioned in the memorandum of appeal, served through the police station. If the convict wishes his own counsel to argue, the court may hear both the counsel and the amicus. If personal service fails, posting the notice on the outer wall of the address suffices. Should the convict remain unresponsive, the court may proceed to decide the appeal without further delay. Important Facts from the Case The appellant’s conviction under Section 302 IPC was partially altered to Section 304 Part II IPC by the amicus. The appellant claimed he was not informed about the absence of his counsel or the appointment of the amicus. The Supreme Court declined to entertain fresh grounds of acquittal but revived the appeal for fresh hearing in the High Court. The judgment reiterates the requirement that amicus appointments in capital or life‑imprisonment cases must be by advocates with at least ten years of experience, as mandated in Anokhi Lal . UPSC Relevance Understanding this judgment is crucial for GS‑2 (Polity) and GS‑4 (Ethics) as it touches upon: Judicial safeguards ensuring the right to a fair trial and effective legal aid . Procedural aspects of criminal law, especially the role of amicus curiae and the importance of notifying parties. Implications of bail provisions under Section 389 Cr.P.C. and the need to prevent abuse of the criminal justice system. Way Forward Courts should institutionalise the notice‑serving mechanism to avoid technical challenges before higher courts. Lawmakers may consider amending procedural rules to make the notification step mandatory, thereby enhancing transparency and reducing pendency. For aspirants, mastering these procedural safeguards will aid in answering questions on criminal justice reforms, judicial activism, and the balance between individual rights and efficient case management.
Login to bookmark articles
Login to mark articles as complete
Overview
Supreme Court mandates notice to convicts before appointing amicus, strengthening fair‑trial rights
Key Facts
Supreme Court bench (Justices Dipankar Datta & Satish Chandra Sharma) ordered that a notice be served to the convict via the jurisdictional police station before appointing an amicus curiae in criminal appeals (2024).
The direction builds on Anokhi Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2019), which requires an amicus in capital or life‑imprisonment cases to have a minimum of ten years' legal experience.
The case concerned a 20‑year‑old appeal where the appellant, convicted under Section 302 IPC, had his conviction partially altered to Section 304 Part II IPC by an amicus without his knowledge.
If personal service of the notice fails, posting it on the outer wall of the convict's address is deemed sufficient; the court may then proceed if the convict remains unresponsive.
The judgment warns against misuse of bail under Section 389 Cr.P.C. and directs firm judicial action against such abuse.
The Supreme Court revived the appeal for a fresh hearing in the High Court but declined to entertain fresh grounds of acquittal.
Background & Context
The order underscores the judiciary's role in safeguarding the constitutional right to a fair trial and legal aid, linking to GS‑2 topics on judicial safeguards and procedural fairness. It also reflects judicial activism aimed at curbing pendency and ensuring transparency in criminal proceedings, a theme relevant to GS‑4 ethics of probity and accountability.
UPSC Syllabus Connections
Prelims_GS•Constitution and Political SystemEssay•Philosophy, Ethics and Human ValuesGS2•Executive and Judiciary - structure, organization and functioningGS4•Concept of public service, philosophical basis of governance and probity
Mains Answer Angle
GS‑2 (Polity) – Discuss how the Supreme Court's procedural directive enhances fair‑trial guarantees and strengthens judicial oversight. GS‑4 (Ethics) – Evaluate the ethical imperatives of notifying parties before appointing an amicus curiae.