Supreme Court Overturns Calcutta High Court Order Due to Insufficient Preparation Time for Legal Aid Counsel
The Supreme Court has set aside an order from the Calcutta High Court after noting that the legal aid counsel was appointed just hours before a life sentence was awarded, leaving inadequate time for case preparation.
In the case under review, the bench, comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal, observed that the High Court failed to provide the legal aid counsel with a reasonable timeframe to prepare for the case. They stated,
“This was a case where the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. Therefore, it was a duty of the Court to give a reasonable time to the advocate appointed to go through the file and get ready to assist the Court… The High Court decided the appeal on the same day on which the advocate was appointed. In this case, the advocate appointed to represent the accused was not granted even a reasonable time to prepare herself.”
The Court further emphasized that the primary objective of appointing a lawyer for an unrepresented accused is to ensure that justice is served. Given the circumstances, the Supreme Court decided to annul the High Court’s order and sent the matter back to the High Court for a renewed evaluation.
Interestingly, the legal aid counsel had argued before the High Court that the appellant-accused did not share a common intention with the co-accused. This led the Supreme Court to infer that the lawyer might not have been aware that the trial court did not convict the accused under Section 34 of the IPC. Furthermore, the counsel seemed to have adopted the same arguments as those of a co-accused. These observations underscored the Court’s belief that the legal aid counsel was not given ample time to adequately prepare for the case.
The Court remarked,
“Obviously, the advocate was not aware that Section 34 of the IPC was not invoked by the trial court and therefore, she has argued as if the appellant was convicted with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC. This happened obviously because the appointed advocate was not given time to prepare herself.”
This decision by the Supreme Court underscores the importance of ensuring that legal representatives, especially those appointed for unrepresented accused, are given adequate time and resources to prepare their defense, ensuring a fair trial and upholding the principles of justice.
