Tweet
The Supreme Court has made it clear to all courts that a criminal case should not be decided against the accused in the absence of counsel to represent his case.
A Bench of Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra in its order on Friday said: “Even assuming that counsel does not appear because of negligence or deliberately, the court should not decide a criminal case against the accused in the absence of his counsel since the accused should not suffer for the fault of his counsel and in such a situation the court should appoint another counsel as amicus curiae to defend the accused.”
The Bench said: “This is because the liberty of a person is the most important feature of our Constitution. Article 21, which guarantees protection of life and personal liberty, is the most important of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Article 21 can be said to be the ‘heart and soul' of the fundamental rights.”
It was not fair or just that a criminal case should be decided against an accused person in the absence of counsel. Only a lawyer who was conversant with law could properly defend him. “Hence, in our opinion, if a criminal case is decided against an accused in the absence of counsel, there will be violation of Article 21.
In the instant appeal, Md. Sukur Ali is aggrieved that his conviction in a criminal case by a trial court in Assam was upheld by the Gauhati High Court in the absence of his counsel. Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the matter to the High Court for a fresh decision by a Bench other than the one which passed it.
A Bench of Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra in its order on Friday said: “Even assuming that counsel does not appear because of negligence or deliberately, the court should not decide a criminal case against the accused in the absence of his counsel since the accused should not suffer for the fault of his counsel and in such a situation the court should appoint another counsel as amicus curiae to defend the accused.”
The Bench said: “This is because the liberty of a person is the most important feature of our Constitution. Article 21, which guarantees protection of life and personal liberty, is the most important of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Article 21 can be said to be the ‘heart and soul' of the fundamental rights.”
It was not fair or just that a criminal case should be decided against an accused person in the absence of counsel. Only a lawyer who was conversant with law could properly defend him. “Hence, in our opinion, if a criminal case is decided against an accused in the absence of counsel, there will be violation of Article 21.
In the instant appeal, Md. Sukur Ali is aggrieved that his conviction in a criminal case by a trial court in Assam was upheld by the Gauhati High Court in the absence of his counsel. Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the matter to the High Court for a fresh decision by a Bench other than the one which passed it.