Shweta Tambade
The Supreme Court has set aside the Allahabad High Court’s order that had dismissed an appeal filed by a man in a 1987 murder case. It noted that the right of being represented through a lawyer is part of the “due process clause” as his counsel had not appeared during the hearing.
The Supreme Court has asked the HC to hear the appeal at an earlier date. It also noted that the High Court could appoint an amicus curiae to assist it when the petitioner was not represented before it through a lawyer in the matter.
“It is well accepted that right of being represented through a counsel is part of due process clause and is referable to the right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” a bench headed by Justice U U Lalit said.
On 18th December, the bench also comprising Justices Vineet Saran and S Ravindra Bhat ordered, “In case the advocate representing the cause of the accused, for one reason or the other was not available, it was open to the court to appoint an amicus curiae to assist the court but the cause, in any case, ought not to be allowed to go unrepresented.”
The top court passed the order while hearing a plea filed by the convict against the April 2017 verdict of the High Court which had rejected his appeal challenging the trial court judgement awarding him a life term in a murder case.
It noted the submission of the petitioner’s lawyer that the appeal was disposed of by the high court as the representation on behalf of the appellant was absent.
“In the circumstances, we have no other alternative but to set-aside the judgment passed by the high court and to restore criminal appeal…to the file of the high court to be disposed of afresh,” the top court said.
It noted that the man, who was on bail while his appeal was pending in the high court, has since been taken into custody.
The bench said, on 11 January, that the convict shall appear before the high court through an advocate, and in case of any default, the high court may appoint an amicus curiae to assist it in the matter.
The bench, while disposing of the plea said that the convict shall continue to stay in custody during the pendency of the matter before the HC.