High Court Not Training Institute: KHCAA Conveys 'Strongest Displeasure' Over Appointment Of Law Students As Amicus Curiae
The Kerala High Court Advocates' Association (KHCAA) in a letter addressed to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court, has expressed "strongest displeasure" over the recent appointment of two second-year law students as Amicus Curiae in a bail matter under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.
The concern stems from a judgment dated 12 August 2025 of the Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas (Neutral Citation: 2025 KER 60624), whereby the Court appointed two interns, Nikhina Thomas and Neha Babu, both second-year students from Ramaiah College, Bengaluru—as Amici Curiae. The judge cited their commitment observed during proceedings as the reason for their inclusion.
The KHCAA has objected to the move, asserting that such appointments risk trivialising the role of an Amicus Curiae, traditionally reserved for seasoned advocates or experts. KHCAA President Yeshwanth Shenoy, in the letter mentioned, “…the Hon'ble Court normally appoints a Senior Advocate or an advocate to assist the Court and in case of any specialised area where the Court requires technical assistance, then an expert in the field is appointed.”
The association argued that the presence of competent legal representation on both sides of the case made the appointment of additional Amici questionable, particularly students without the standing of an advocate under the Advocates Act, 1961.
The letter added, “The appointment of law students as Amicus who are 'law students' undermines the active assistance given by the advocates appearing for the Applicant and the State and also the other advocates in the Court. Appointment of Amicus is a very serious issue and the exercise cannot be made as 'routine or trivial' by appointment of 'law students' as Amicus. If the Hon'ble Court required active legal assistance on a question of law, it ought to have appointed a Senior advocate or any other advocate at the Bar. The Judge ought to know that this Hon'ble Court is not a training institution for law students and encouraging 'growing buds' is the duty of the law school.”
It was further said, “If at all there is any duty on a Judge, it is to encourage young advocates at the Bar.”
Highlighting the gravity of the issue involved a bail matter concerning commercial quantities of Ganja the KHCAA pointed out that the legal nuances extended beyond precedents and required a deeper analysis, including systemic failures in the investigation of narcotics cases. Citing alarming data, the letter stated that drug-related arrests in Kerala have surged 360% from 2016 to 2022, underlining the necessity for expert legal insights rather than academic enthusiasm. The letter further added, “Taking this into consideration, the Hon'ble Court could have addressed the 'technical failures' of the police while dealing with 'narcotics offenders' that results in uncontrolled rise of 'drug abuse'. The issue remains untouched and a senior advocate could have brought that perspective to the issue.”
Further, the KHCAA stressed the need for formal rules regarding the appointment of Amicus Curiae under the Kerala High Court Rules, 1971. It also reiterated its long-standing demand for KHCAA-nominated representation on the High Court Rules Committee, as opposed to judicially nominated members.
The KHCAA also unveiled its initiative to create a research facility where advocates can pursue continued legal scholarship. It proposed that researchers from this pool be enlisted for Amicus Curiae roles based on their areas of expertise.
“The Judicial system cannot be made a mockery of by appointing law students as 'amicus' even if the intent may have been to encourage law students,” the association stated, referencing sections of the Advocates Act that restrict legal practice to enrolled advocates.
KHCAA added that the Solicitor General of India and the Supreme Court had also previously emphasized the need for structured and transparent appointment processes.
The letter concluded, “The KHCAA places on record its strongest displeasure and hopes that the act of appointing persons who are not advocates as Amicus will not be repeated by any Judge of this Hon'ble Court and we express hope that the Rules of the High Court ofKerala will be amended to bring in transparency in the appointment of' Amicus'.”