Legal Aid Must Be Meaningful, Not A Mere Formality: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that legal aid to an accused person must not be a mere ritual or token formality, but a substantive and meaningful exercise that ensures effective legal representation.

A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma reiterated Court's consistent stand on legal aid while partly allowing an appeal filed by Nandkishore Mishra against the Madhya Pradesh High Court's November 26, 2025 judgment.

The high court had dismissed Mishra's appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [corresponding to Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023] and upheld his conviction and life imprisonment in a 2020 murder case.

Why did the Supreme Court set aside the high court's judgment?

The high court had decided Mishra's appeal after appointing an amicus curiae because no one appeared on behalf of the appellant.

Before the Supreme Court, Mishra's counsel argued that he had been denied justice. He submitted that while the appellant remained in custody, he was never informed that his engaged advocate had not appeared and that the high court had appointed an amicus curiae to represent him.

The counsel pointed out that the amicus was appointed on November 20, 2025, and the appeal was dismissed just six days later, on November 26, 2025. During this period, the amicus neither met nor consulted the appellant, who was still lodged in jail.

It was further submitted that the appellant's engaged advocate could not appear before the high court because he was undergoing medical treatment.

The Supreme Court noted that there was nothing on record to show that any notice had been served on the appellant or that he had received any communication regarding the hearing of his appeal.

"In the absence of any such material, we are constrained to draw an adverse inference and accept the submission of the appellant in this regard," the Bench said.

Court observed that although the high court was eager to decide the appeal without further delay, it failed to inform the appellant that, in the absence of his lawyer, an amicus curiae had been appointed to represent him. It also found that the amicus apparently had no opportunity to interact with the appellant before arguing the matter.

"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 observed.

Court added that while there could be no doubt about the high court's bona fide intention in appointing an amicus to ensure representation, the ends of justice would have been better served if a formal notice had been issued to the appellant informing him about the hearing and the arrangement made for his legal representation.

According to the Bench, such a course becomes even more necessary where the appellant continues to remain incarcerated during the pendency of the appeal.

What did the Supreme Court say on legal aid?

Relying on the judgments in Bhola Mahto v. State of Jharkhand and Anokhi Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Supreme Court reiterated two essential requirements for effective legal aid: first, an amicus curiae must be given reasonable time to prepare the case, and second, the amicus must be given adequate opportunity to meet and consult the accused or convict.

"Admittedly, neither of these directions appear to have been complied with in the present case," the Bench said.

Court also observed that judicial time is "valuable and finite" and should not be wasted in a casual or avoidable manner. It reiterated that the directions issued in Anokhi Lal and the observations made in Bhola Mahto must be followed scrupulously, along with the relevant procedural rules governing the courts.

Setting aside the high court's judgment, the Supreme Court directed that Mishra's criminal appeal be heard afresh.

The Bench said the matter should, subject to availability, be heard by the same division bench of the high court. Taking note of the fact that the appellant is a septuagenarian, it directed the high court to decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible from the date of first hearing, while keeping all questions on merits open.

Court further directed that the appellant shall remain in custody until the appeal is decided on its own merits.

Case Title: Nandkishore Mishra Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Bench: Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma 

Date of Judgment: May 22, 2026