The Supreme Court has directed compliance with the directions issued in Anokhi Lal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2019) and Bhola Mahto v State of Jharkhand (2026), mandating that the amicus must be afforded a reasonable time to prepare the matter and an adequate opportunity must be granted to the amicus to meet and confer with the accused/convict concerned.

The Apex Court was considering an appeal challenging the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissing the appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the appellant, who was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment.

The Division Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma stated, “For the sake of brevity, we do not wish to repeat the directions in Anokhi Lal (supra) and Bhola Mahto (supra) here. However, having regard to the facts of the present case, we deem it appropriate to emphasise two directions issued in Anokhi Lal (supra). First, that the amicus must be afforded reasonable time to prepare the matter; and second, that adequate opportunity must be granted to the amicus to meet and confer with the accused/convict concerned.”

“We therefore reiterate, at the cost of repetition, that the directions issued in Anokhi Lal (supra), as well as the observations made in Bhola Mahto (supra), must be followed scrupulously, in addition to adherence to the relevant rules governing the business and procedure of the courts concerned”, it ordered.

AOR Prathvi Raj Chauhan represented the Appellant, while Advocate Rajan Kumar Chourasia represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The Appellant was convicted by the relevant Sessions Court in 2022 in respect of the crime of murder committed by him. Appellant’s appeal was listed before a Division Bench of the High Court. As per the order passed on that day, since no one was appearing on behalf of the appellant, the Division Bench appointed an amicus curiae to assist the Court and also listed the case for hearing the following week. Upon consideration of the evidence led at the trial, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence of the Trial Court.

Arguments

According to the appellant, while he was languishing in custody, he was not notified by the High Court that, in the absence of the advocate engaged by him, an amicus had been appointed. The appeal was dismissed merely six days after the appointment of the amicus. The appellant claimed that in the intervening period, the amicus did not meet or have any conference with the appellant, who was still lodged in the correctional home regarding his pending appeal and failed to effectively present his case.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that the appellant has been in custody since October 16, 2020, as per the custody certificate on record and had remained in custody during the pendency of the appeal.

The Bench was of the view that the High Court, in its anxiety to deliver justice without further delay and decide the appeal expeditiously, had not attempted to inform the appellant that, in the absence of representation from his side, an amicus had been appointed to represent him. The Bench also noticed that the amicus had no opportunity to interact with the appellant, who was lodged in a correctional home.

The Bench stated, “While there can be no doubt about the bona fide intention of the High Court in appointing an amicus to represent convict whose advocate is not present to argue his appeal with a view to advancing the cause of justice, it would perhaps have better served the ends of justice had a formal notice been issued to the appellant informing him of the hearing and the arrangement made for his representation. Such a course becomes all the more imperative where, as in the present case, the appellant remained incarcerated during the pendency of the appeal.”

Considering that neither the amicus was afforded a reasonable time to prepare the matter nor an adequate opportunity was granted to the amicus to meet and confer with the accused/convict concerned, the Bench granted relief to the septuagenarian appellant. Setting aside the impugned order, the Bench ordered the revival of his appeal on the file of the High Court.

Cause Title: Nandkishore Mishra v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 531)

Appearance

Appellant: AOR Prathvi Raj Chauhan, Advocates Venkatesh Rajput, Pooja Rathore, Prakash Sharma

Respondent: Advocate Rajan Kumar Chourasia, AOR Mrinal Gopal Elker

Click here to read/download Judgment


Justice Dipankar DattaJustice Satish Chandra Sharma

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.