The Supreme Court emphasised that legal assistance for an accused cannot be reduced to a ritual or token formality. It must instead be a meaningful, substantive process that ensures the accused receives effective and genuine legal counsel throughout the proceedings
The Supreme Court reiterated that legal assistance for an accused cannot be treated as a mere ritual or token formality. Instead, it must be a substantive and meaningful step that provides effective legal counsel.
Justices Dipankar Datta and SC Sharma made these observations while delivering a decision on a plea filed by septuagenarian Nandkishore Mishra, who received a life sentence from the trial court after being convicted of murder.
The bench noted that Mishra, aged 74, has been lodged in a correctional home in Madhya Pradesh. When his appeal against conviction and sentence came up before the High Court, no one appeared on his behalf.
In response, the High Court appointed an amicus to assist and represent the accused.
However, the Supreme Court observed that the amicus was appointed on November 20, 2025, and the High Court disposed of the appeal on November 26, 2025. During that period, no notice was issued to Mishra informing him about the appeal hearing, and the amicus reportedly did not meet him.
In its decision uploaded on Friday, the Supreme Court stated that the High Court, in its effort to conclude the matter without delay, did not attempt to inform Mishra that an amicus had been appointed to represent him in the absence of any advocate from his side.
It said,
“Furthermore, it also does not seem that the amicus had any opportunity to interact with the appellant, who was lodged in a correctional home. The high court was under no obligation to inform the appellant regarding the absence of his advocate. Nevertheless, it would have been a prudent and desirable step had the appellant been intimated of the same,”
The bench further emphasized that this issue gains added importance in view of the court’s consistent position on the nature of legal aid.
It said,
“This acquires added significance in light of the consistent view taken by this Court that legal aid to an accused person must not be a mere ritual or a token formality, but a substantive and meaningful exercise that ensures effective assistance of counsel.”
The Supreme Court also acknowledged that the High Court’s intention in appointing the amicus was bona fide, aimed at ensuring justice despite the lack of representation by Mishra’s advocate. Still, it held that the ends of justice would have been better served if Mishra had been formally informed about the hearing and the arrangement for representation.
While ordering a de-novo hearing on his appeal by the high court,it said,
“Such a course becomes all the more imperative where, as in the present case, the appellant remained incarcerated during the pendency of the appeal,”
The Supreme Court laid down two principles for cases where an amicus is appointed:
- The amicus must be given reasonable time to prepare the matter.
- The amicus must be provided adequate opportunity to meet and confer with the accused/convict.
The bench noted that neither of these directions appears to have been followed in Mishra’s case.
It further remarked that judicial time is valuable and cannot be spent casually or unnecessarily, saying,
While directing compliance with the two principles in appointment of the amicus to represent the accused,the bench said,
“Needless to say, judicial time is both valuable and finite, and ought not to be expended in a casual or avoidable manner,”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order dated November 26, 2025, and remanded the case back for a fresh hearing.
The court directed that the appeal be listed on any date within two months of its judgment. It also suggested that, preferably, the same division bench members who heard the matter on November 26, 2025 should be assigned again, subject to availability. If that is not feasible, the Chief Justice of the High Court should constitute a division bench where at least one of the earlier member judges remains part of the quorum.
The bench added that, given Mishra’s age, it would be especially beneficial if the High Court decides the appeal as early as possible from the date of the first hearing.
Mishra has been in custody since October 16, 2020, the date of the incident. The trial court convicted him on December 20, 2022 and sentenced him to life imprisonment.