Use Of Amicus Curiae In Criminal Cases
🧾 What is Amicus Curiae?
Amicus Curiae (Latin: “friend of the court”) is a person, usually a legal expert or advocate, appointed by the court to assist in a case where the court believes independent legal assistance is necessary.
In criminal cases, an amicus curiae may be appointed in complex matters, constitutional issues, or when an accused is unrepresented or the matter has significant public interest implications.
⚖️ Legal Framework in India
No specific statute governs the appointment of an amicus curiae in India, but the power flows from the inherent powers of the courts under:
Article 142 of the Constitution (Supreme Court),
Section 482 CrPC (High Courts),
And general principles of natural justice.
Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 also supports legal aid to undertrials or indigent persons, and amicus curiae may act in such cases.
✅ Roles of Amicus Curiae in Criminal Cases
Representing unrepresented or indigent accused.
Advising the court in matters of public importance or constitutional interpretation.
Helping ensure a fair trial when the original counsel is ineffective, absent, or conflicted.
Offering independent perspectives in cases involving mass violence, custodial death, or systemic injustice.
📚 Detailed Case Laws on Amicus Curiae in Criminal Cases
1. Mohd. Hussain alias Julfikar Ali v. State (2012)
Court: Supreme Court
Citation: (2012) 2 SCC 584
🔍 Facts:
The accused was convicted in a Delhi blast case.
Trial proceeded without legal representation; he was not provided an effective lawyer.
⚖️ Judgment:
The Court held that a trial without effective legal aid violates Article 21 (Right to Life and Fair Trial).
The conviction was set aside as the accused had no proper legal representation, and no amicus curiae was appointed.
🧾 Significance:
Established that appointing an amicus curiae is essential if the accused is unrepresented, especially in serious criminal trials.
2. Rattiram v. State of M.P. (2012)
Court: Supreme Court
Citation: (2012) 4 SCC 516
🔍 Facts:
The accused in a rape case was tried without legal aid, though he had not formally requested a lawyer.
⚖️ Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that non-representation by a competent lawyer results in a miscarriage of justice.
Mandated that courts should appoint amicus curiae in such circumstances to protect the fairness of the trial.
🧾 Significance:
Clarified that courts must act suo motu to appoint amicus curiae where necessary, even if the accused doesn't ask.
3. Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014)
Court: Supreme Court
Citation: (2014) 3 SCC 1
🔍 Facts:
Concerned the rights of death row convicts who had suffered due to inordinate delays in mercy petitions.
⚖️ Judgment:
The court appointed multiple amicus curiae to assist in examining constitutional rights of death row prisoners.
🧾 Significance:
Marked a key instance where amicus curiae played a policy advisory role in a criminal constitutional matter.
Expanded the scope of judicial review in clemency and death penalty cases.
4. In Re Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons (2016)
Court: Supreme Court
Type: Suo Motu Writ Petition (Criminal)
🔍 Facts:
A suo motu case on the inhuman conditions of Indian prisons and rights of undertrial prisoners.
⚖️ Judgment:
The court appointed senior advocates as amici curiae to investigate systemic issues like overcrowding, legal aid, and custodial violence.
🧾 Significance:
Illustrated the use of amicus curiae in criminal justice reform.
Not tied to a single criminal trial, but impacted thousands of prisoners.
5. Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2006)
Court: Supreme Court
Citation: (2006) 3 SCC 374
🔍 Facts:
Zahira, a key witness in the Best Bakery case (2002 Gujarat riots), turned hostile.
Alleged threats and lack of protection; media attention followed.
⚖️ Judgment:
Court appointed amicus curiae to assist in protecting witness rights and fair trial.
Ordered retrial outside Gujarat due to bias and intimidation.
🧾 Significance:
Landmark case on witness protection and fair trial in communal violence cases.
Role of amicus curiae in ensuring institutional integrity of the justice process.
6. Devendra Pal Singh Bhullar v. State (2013)
Court: Supreme Court
Citation: Death penalty review
🔍 Facts:
Bhullar was a death row convict seeking commutation of sentence on the ground of delay and mental illness.
⚖️ Judgment:
Amicus curiae was appointed to provide neutral medical and legal opinions.
🧾 Significance:
Showed the court’s reliance on independent experts in death penalty mitigation hearings.
📌 Summary Table of Key Cases
| Case | Key Issue | Role of Amicus Curiae | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mohd. Hussain (2012) | No legal aid during trial | Should have been appointed to ensure fair trial | Conviction set aside |
| Rattiram (2012) | Accused tried without lawyer | Must be appointed proactively | New trial ordered |
| Shatrughan Chauhan (2014) | Delay in mercy petitions | Assisted in constitutional review | Guidelines issued |
| Inhuman Conditions (2016) | Prison reforms | Policy advisory in systemic issues | Multiple reforms suggested |
| Zahira Sheikh (2006) | Witness intimidation | Helped monitor fair trial and retrial | Retrial moved to Maharashtra |
| Devendra Pal Singh Bhullar (2013) | Death penalty & mental illness | Legal and medical advisory | Helped evaluate commutation plea |
🏁 Conclusion
The role of amicus curiae in criminal cases is vital in:
Protecting rights of the accused, especially in capital or serious offenses.
Assisting courts in complex constitutional or policy matters.
Ensuring fair trial even when the accused is indigent or unrepresented.
Advising on systemic reforms, such as prison conditions and death penalty reviews.
The Indian judiciary has used this mechanism not just to protect individual rights, but also to uphold constitutional morality and the rule of law.
RELATED Blog
0 comments