In a stunning courtroom development, the Supreme Court, on December 1, expressed its astonishment when an advocate refused to present arguments before the Allahabad High Court during a criminal appeal. The case revolves around the conviction of the accused under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Seeking relief, the appellants had approached the High Court, which granted them bail until the appeal’s resolution.
However, when the High Court convened for the hearing, the appellants’ counsel shocked the Bench by declining to argue the case. Consequently, the interim bail granted earlier was revoked. The legal tussle found its way to the Supreme Court, presided over by Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal.
Expressing their dismay at the advocate’s audacious stance, the Division Bench remarked, “We are shocked to note that the advocate appointed by the appellants was bold enough to tell the concerned Bench of the High Court that he would not like to argue the matter before that Bench. We are separately dealing with the conduct of the advocate.”
The Court, deeming this conduct potentially constituting criminal contempt, issued a show cause notice to the advocate, summoning him to appear before the Supreme Court. Moreover, the Bench disagreed with the cancellation of bail, asserting, “Needless to add that only on account of default by the advocate for the appellants, the appellants ought not to have been penalized by passing a drastic order of cancelling bail.”
The Court proposed an alternative approach, suggesting that the High Court could have appointed an amicus curiae for the accused and proceeded to hear the case on its merits. Citing a well-established principle, the Bench stated, “This Court has repeatedly taken the view that in a given case where an unwarranted adjournment is sought by the advocate representing the accused in the appeal against conviction, the Court has an option of appointing an amicus curiae to espouse the cause of the accused and hearing the appeal on merits.”
In a decisive move, the Supreme Court restored the interim bail order issued by the High Court. The Court clarified that in case of unwarranted adjournments during the appeal hearing, the High Court has the authority to appoint an amicus curiae to proceed with the case. The case in question is titled Krishna Kumar Vs. The State Of Uttar Pradesh, Diary No.- 18594 – 2023.
Loading...
Reload document 
Open in new tab
