Sc tells courts to notify convicts before appointing an amicus curiae

THe sublime margaret court has called on appellant courts crossways the rural area to ensure that convicts are duly notified at their registered addresses before appointing an amicus curiae (lawyer to assist court) to argue their appeals, cautioning that failure to do so risks undermining the fairness of criminal proceedings.A bench of justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma noted that it has repeatedly encountered cases where convicts later challenge adverse verdicts on the ground that their appeals were argued by court-appointed lawyers without their knowledge or consent.The court underlined that while appointing an amicus curiae is often necessary, particularly when an accused is unrepresented or has abandoned proceedings, such appointments cannot substitute the fundamental requirement of putting the convict on notice.The bench, in its judgment released on Wednesday, acknowledged a growing pattern in criminal appeals that convicts, after securing bail, frequently lose interest in actively pursuing their cases. This leaves appellate courts in a difficult position, compelled to proceed with hearings to avoid indefinite delays.“Drawing from experience, we can record that on many an occasion, such convicts become untraceable. These convicts, enjoying the concession of bail and misusing it, need to be dealt with firm and strong hands by the courts,” it said.However, the bench noted that this practical necessity has led to an unintended consequence. In several instances, convicts later return to court claiming they were unaware that their chosen counsel was no longer representing them and that the case had been decided with the assistance of an amicus.Such claims, the bench said, raise serious concerns about the integrity of the appellate process and open the door to fresh rounds of litigation, further burdening the justice system.To address this, the Supreme Court said that before appointing an amicus curiae, courts ought to make a genuine effort to inform the convict by issuing notice at the address available on record.“In order to curb the tendency of convicts to raise technical pleas of the nature…we observe that, henceforth, 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…to be served on him through the jurisdictional police station,” it said.The court said that once notice is duly served, the appeal can proceed with the amicus, especially if the convict engages and gives instructions. If the convict opts to appoint a private lawyer, courts may hear such counsel alongside the amicus. Where notice cannot be served or is refused, affixation at the recorded address will suffice. If the convict still remains unresponsive, courts can proceed to decide the appeal. This process, the bench said, will curb later claims of unfairness and help courts deal with long-pending appeals, including cases where it must be ascertained if the appeal has abated.This procedural safeguard, the bench emphasised, serves a dual purpose -- it protects the convicts’ right to representation of choice while also insulating judicial decisions from subsequent challenge on procedural grounds.“Fair hearing” principles, the court indicated, require that an accused or convict be given a meaningful opportunity to participate in proceedings affecting their liberty.The matter arose from a criminal appeal decided by the high court with the assistance of an amicus curiae after the convict, who was on bail, failed to actively pursue the case. The convict later challenged the outcome before the Supreme Court, claiming he was unaware that his appeal had been argued by an amicus and not by counsel of his choice, raising concerns of denial of fair hearing.