Effective Legal Representation Is Not A Luxury, But A Constitutional Right: Supreme Court Slams High Court for Denying Fair Hearing to Murder Accused

“When liberty is at stake, the court must not treat the accused as a mute spectator to his own condemnation” — the Supreme Court has held that the right to be defended by counsel includes the right to meaningful and effective assistance, not a superficial formality. A criminal appeal cannot be disposed of in haste, especially when the accused faces life imprisonment.

In a powerful reaffirmation of Article 21 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court set aside a conviction under Section 302 IPC on the ground that the High Court of Punjab and Haryana had violated the accused's right to effective legal representation. Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, declared the High Court's handling of the appeal procedurally unfair and constitutionally impermissible.

“A Man Sentenced to Life Cannot Be Defended by a Lawyer Who Has No Time to Read the File”: Supreme Court Condemns High Court’s Approach

The appeal before the High Court had been listed on September 18, 2024, for a miscellaneous procedural application concerning a vehicle. However, when the counsel for the accused-appellant was absent, the High Court suddenly took up the criminal appeal on merits, appointed an amicus curiae, and reserved judgment the same day — without giving the amicus any time to prepare.

The Supreme Court found this to be a serious breach of the principles of natural justice and fair trial:

“The High Court fell short of the standards of fairness expected in the adjudication of a criminal appeal. It ought to have acted pragmatically and adjourned the matter... or at least afforded the newly appointed amicus a reasonable opportunity to inspect the record, study the relevant documents, and consult with the accused.”

Citing Chaluvegowda v. State, Mohd. Sukur Ali v. State of Assam, and the 3-Judge Bench decision in Anokhilal v. State of M.P., the Court noted that life and liberty cannot be compromised on the altar of judicial convenience.

“The appointment of an amicus curiae must not be reduced to a sham or an eyewash. The right to be defended by a lawyer must be real — not a hollow shell.”

“The Right to Legal Aid Must Be Real — Not a Performance for the Record”: Court Says Legal Process Must Not Devolve Into Procedural Theatre

The Supreme Court stressed that in criminal cases involving life sentences or death, courts have a heightened duty to ensure the accused is fully represented. Quoting from Anokhilal, the judgment noted:

“In all cases where there is a possibility of life sentence or death sentence... the amicus must be granted a reasonable time to prepare. A minimum of seven days’ time may normally be considered appropriate and adequate.”

In Tarun Sharma’s case, the amicus was appointed on the very day of final hearing, provided no case record, and had no opportunity to meet the accused. The Supreme Court found this to be a mockery of justice.

“Such a process violates the very soul of Article 21 — which guarantees not just life and liberty, but also dignity and due process.”

“Effective Hearing Is Not A Procedural Luxury — It Is a Fundamental Guarantee”: Court Reminds Judiciary of Its Duties

The Court also reminded High Courts and trial courts that a fair trial is not a favour granted to the accused, but a constitutional imperative. In criminal justice, especially where the punishment is life imprisonment, courts must ensure that representation is effective in substance, not merely in form.

“The procedure adopted by the High Court... renders the safeguard of effective legal representation an empty formality and undermines the very essence of the right to fair trial.”

Rejecting the idea that mere presence of a lawyer — any lawyer — satisfies the requirements of law, the Court reiterated that judicial speed cannot override constitutional fairness.

Acquittal Granted in View of Violation of Article 21, Lack of Fair Hearing, and Dubious Evidence

In addition to finding the dying declaration unreliable, the Court held that the appeal itself was improperly decided, as the appellant had no effective chance to argue his defence.

“When the accused’s liberty is in jeopardy, the courts must bend over backward to ensure fairness — not bend the process to suit procedural convenience.”

Accordingly, the conviction and life sentence under Section 302 IPC were quashed, and Tarun Sharma was acquitted after 12 years of incarceration. The Court directed that he be released forthwith, unless wanted in any other case.

“The Rule of Law Is Not a Ritual — It Is the Guardian of Liberty”: Supreme Court Affirms Procedural Fairness as the Bedrock of Justice

This judgment marks a strong reaffirmation that procedural shortcuts and perfunctory legal representation cannot form the foundation of a criminal conviction.

The Court’s message is unmistakable: “In the theatre of criminal justice, the accused cannot be made a silent observer to his own condemnation. The defence must be heard, not just recorded.”

Date of Decision: September 1, 2025