The Supreme Court has ordered a fresh hearing in a criminal appeal after observing that effective legal representation cannot be reduced to a “token formality.” The Court found that a convict serving a life sentence was not informed that the High Court had appointed an amicus curiae to argue his case after his private lawyer failed to appear.
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s 2025 order that had upheld the man’s conviction in a murder case.
Background of the Case
The appellant, Nandkishore Mishra, had been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court in December 2022 for a murder committed in October 2020. The High Court later affirmed the conviction while dismissing his appeal.
During the hearing before the High Court on November 20, 2025, no lawyer appeared for the appellant. The Division Bench then appointed an amicus curiae and fixed the matter for hearing the following week.
The appeal was argued by the amicus on November 26, 2025, and the conviction was upheld the same day.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that he remained in custody throughout and was never informed about the appointment of the amicus or the hearing of his appeal. He also claimed that the amicus did not meet him before arguing the matter.
The Supreme Court noted that there was nothing on record to show that notice had been served upon the appellant regarding the hearing of his appeal or the appointment of the amicus curiae.
The Bench observed that although the High Court was not legally bound to notify the appellant about the absence of his lawyer, informing him would have been a “prudent and desirable step.”
“The legal aid to an accused person must not be a mere ritual or a token formality, but a substantive and meaningful exercise that ensures effective assistance of counsel,” the Court observed.
The Court further referred to earlier decisions, including Bhola Mahto v. State of Jharkhand and Anokhi Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reiterating that an amicus curiae must get adequate time to prepare and sufficient opportunity to interact with the accused.
According to the Bench, neither of these safeguards appeared to have been followed in the present case.
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s November 26, 2025 judgment and restored the criminal appeal for a fresh hearing.
The Court directed that the matter be listed within two months and preferably be heard by the same judges who had earlier decided the appeal, subject to availability.
It also clarified that the appellant, who is over 70 years old, would continue to remain in custody until the High Court decides the appeal afresh on merits.
Case Details
Case Title: Nandkishore Mishra v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Case Number: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (CRL) No. 3371 of 2026
Judge: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
Decision Date: May 22, 2026
