Nandkishore Mishrav.The State of Madhya Pradesh

Legal Analysis: Nandkishore Mishra v. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Citation: 2026 INSC 531

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: A Division Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta (author) and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

Date of Decision: May 22, 2026

Nature of Judgment: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3371 of 2026 against the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur dated 26th November 2025.

Synopsis of the Judgment

The appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. His appeal before the High Court was listed on 20th November 2025. Since no counsel appeared for the appellant, the High Court appointed an amicus curiae. Six days later, on 26th November 2025, the amicus argued the appeal, and the High Court dismissed it, affirming the conviction and sentence. The appellant contended before the Supreme Court that he was not notified of the appointment of the amicus, nor did the amicus have any opportunity to meet or confer with him (a 74-year-old septuagenarian in custody). The Supreme Court held that while the High Court was under no obligation to inform the appellant about the absence of his advocate, it would have been prudent and desirable to do so, especially since the appellant remained incarcerated. The Court reiterated the directions in Anokhi Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Bhola Mahto v. State of Jharkhand that an amicus must be afforded reasonable time to prepare the matter and adequate opportunity to meet and confer with the accused. Finding that these directions were not complied with, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order, revived the appeal, and remanded it to the High Court for a de novo hearing. The appellant was directed to continue on bail (which was granted during pendency before the Supreme Court) pending the fresh hearing.

1. Basic Information of the Judgment

Case Title: Nandkishore Mishra v. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Citation: 2026 INSC 531

Criminal Appeal No.: Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3371 of 2026

Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta &  Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

Date of Decision: May 22, 2026

Court: Supreme Court of India (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)

Impugned Order: Judgment and order dated 26th November 2025 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. [not specified] under Section 374(2) CrPC, dismissing the appellant’s appeal against conviction under Section 302 IPC.

2. Legal Framework

Major Laws and Provisions Involved

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 374(2) (appeal to High Court against conviction), Section 303 (right of accused to be defended by a pleader of his choice), Section 304 (legal aid to accused).

• Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 (punishment for murder).

• Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 21 (right to a fair trial and effective legal representation), Article 22(1) (right to be defended by a legal practitioner), Article 136 (special leave to appeal).

• Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 – Provision for legal aid.

Key Precedents Cited and Applied

• Anokhi Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Three‑Judge Bench) – Directions regarding appointment of amicus curiae in criminal appeals: amicus must be afforded reasonable time to prepare the matter; adequate opportunity must be granted to the amicus to meet and confer with the accused/convict concerned.

• Bhola Mahto v. State of Jharkhand (recent decision) – Accepted a technical plea of non‑service of notice after appointment of amicus; ordered de novo hearing; reiterated directions in Anokhi Lal and made additional observations regarding service of notice after such appointment.

3. Relevant Facts

The appellant, Nandkishore Mishra (then 74 years old), was convicted by the Sessions Court on 20th December 2022 for the murder committed on 16th October 2020 and was sentenced to life imprisonment. He had been in custody since 16th October 2020. He filed an appeal before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur under Section 374(2) CrPC.

The appeal was listed on 20th November 2025 before a Division Bench. On that day, since no counsel appeared on behalf of the appellant, the Division Bench appointed an amicus curiae to assist the Court and listed the case for hearing the following week. The amicus appeared and argued the appeal on 26th November 2025. The amicus raised points regarding the unreliability of the eye‑witness account (distance of 100 metres, identification based on information from the complainant) and sought leniency on account of the appellant’s age (74 years). The State opposed the appeal. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and sentence.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that he was not notified by the High Court that, in the absence of his advocate, an amicus had been appointed. The amicus was appointed on 20th November 2025, and the appeal was dismissed on 26th November 2025 – merely six days later. In the intervening period, the amicus did not meet or have any conference with the appellant, who was in custody. The appellant argued that he was denied effective legal representation and thus justice.

The State did not produce any material to show that notice was served upon the appellant or that he received any communication regarding the hearing of his appeal.

4. Issues

Issue No. 1: Whether the appellant was denied effective legal representation and a fair opportunity to present his appeal before the High Court when, in the absence of his counsel, an amicus was appointed but the amicus did not meet or confer with him, and the appellant was not informed of the arrangement.

Issue No. 2: Whether the High Court’s procedure (appointment of amicus on 20th November 2025 and dismissal of appeal on 26th November 2025, without affording the amicus reasonable time to prepare or to meet the accused) violated the principles laid down in Anokhi Lal and Bhola Mahto.

Issue No. 3: What relief should be granted – whether the impugned order should be set aside and the appeal remanded for a de novo hearing.

5. Ratio Decidendi

A. The High Court did not inform the appellant about the appointment of the amicus, nor did the amicus have an opportunity to meet him (Paras 8-9).

The Court noted that the appellant was languishing in custody and was not notified by the High Court that, in the absence of his advocate, an amicus had been appointed. The amicus was appointed on 20th November 2025 and the appeal was dismissed on 26th November 2025, just six days later. The amicus did not meet or have any conference with the appellant during this period. The State could not produce any material showing that notice was served on the appellant regarding the hearing or the appointment of the amicus. The Court drew an adverse inference and accepted the appellant’s submission.

B. Legal aid must be substantive, not a mere ritual (Para 10).

The Court held that legal aid to an accused person must not be a mere ritual or token formality, but a substantive and meaningful exercise that ensures effective assistance of counsel. While the High Court’s intention in appointing an amicus to advance the cause of justice was bona fide, it would have been prudent and desirable to issue a formal notice to the appellant informing him of the hearing and the arrangement made for his representation. Such a course becomes all the more imperative where the appellant remains incarcerated during the pendency of the appeal.

C. Directions in Anokhi Lal and Bhola Mahto must be scrupulously followed (Paras 11-12).

The Court referred to Bhola Mahto v. State of Jharkhand, where a similar technical plea regarding non‑service of notice after appointment of an amicus led to a de novo hearing. That case relied on the three‑Judge Bench decision in Anokhi Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh. The Court emphasised two specific directions from Anokhi Lal: first, that the amicus must be afforded reasonable time to prepare the matter; and second, that adequate opportunity must be granted to the amicus to meet and confer with the accused/convict concerned. Neither direction was complied with in the present case. The Court reiterated that these directions must be followed scrupulously, in addition to adherence to the relevant rules governing the business and procedure of the courts concerned.

D. Remand for de novo hearing (Paras 13-16).

The impugned order dated 26th November 2025 was set aside. The appellant’s appeal was revived on the file of the High Court. The High Court was directed to list the appeal within 2 months of the judgment. The same Division Bench (or a Bench with at least one of the same members) was requested to hear the appeal. Since the appellant wished to be represented by his own counsel, there shall be no need to appoint an amicus if his counsel appears. In the unlikely event that the appellant remains unrepresented, the Division Bench would be well advised to decide the appeal in such manner as it thinks fit and proper. Considering that the appellant is a septuagenarian, the High Court was requested to decide the appeal as early as possible.

E. Bail to continue (Para 17).

The appellant remained in custody during the pendency of his appeal prior to the dismissal by the impugned order. He was granted bail by the Supreme Court during the pendency of the SLP. That bail was ordered to continue pending the fresh hearing before the High Court.

6. New Legal Principles Established / Reiterated

• The appointment of an amicus curiae in a criminal appeal, when the accused’s counsel is absent, is not sufficient in itself to satisfy the right to effective legal representation. The amicus must be given reasonable time to prepare and must be afforded an adequate opportunity to meet and confer with the accused, especially when the accused is in custody.

• Legal aid is not a ritual; it must be substantive and meaningful. The High Court, while acting expeditiously, must also ensure that the accused is informed of the hearing and the arrangement made for his representation, particularly when the accused is incarcerated and does not have the ability to engage another counsel on short notice.

• The directions in Anokhi Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (reasonable time for amicus to prepare; opportunity for amicus to meet the accused) are binding and must be scrupulously followed by all High Courts.

• A mere six days between the appointment of an amicus and the final hearing of a criminal appeal, without any indication that the amicus had time to study the record or meet the accused, violates the principle of effective representation and constitutes a ground for remand.

7. Court’s Examination and Analysis

The Court first noted that it was not necessary to examine the appeal on its merits given the procedural irregularity. The appellant had been in custody since the date of the incident (16th October 2020). His appeal before the High Court was disposed of within a week after the appointment of the amicus.

The Court then examined the submission that the appellant was not notified of the hearing and the amicus had no opportunity to meet him. The State could not produce any contrary material. The Court drew an adverse inference and accepted the appellant’s submission.

The Court acknowledged that the High Court’s intention in appointing an amicus was bona fide – to ensure that the appeal was not dismissed for non‑prosecution and to decide it expeditiously. However, the Court held that expediency should not come at the cost of fairness. The appellant, a 74‑year‑old incarcerated person, should have been informed of the arrangement. The amicus should have been given more than six days and should have been enabled to meet the appellant.

The Court then relied on Bhola Mahto, which had recently reiterated the Anokhi Lal directions. The Court found that neither of the two key directions – reasonable time to prepare and opportunity to meet the accused – had been complied with. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

The Court clarified that the appellant wished to be represented by his own counsel, not the amicus. The High Court was directed to list the appeal within two months and to decide it early, especially because the appellant is a septuagenarian. All points on merit were kept open. The bail granted by the Supreme Court was ordered to continue.

8. Critical Analysis

Strengths: The judgment is a robust reaffirmation of the right to effective legal representation under Article 21. It correctly balances the High Court’s desire for expeditious disposal with the accused’s right to a fair hearing. The distinction drawn between the mere appointment of an amicus (a procedural formality) and substantive, meaningful assistance (including time to prepare and an opportunity to meet the accused) is crucial. The judgment also recognises that an incarcerated accused person is particularly vulnerable and cannot be expected to arrange counsel without notice. The reliance on Anokhi Lal and Bhola Mahto ensures consistency in the application of these principles across the country.

Potential concerns: The judgment does not explicitly criticise the amicus for not seeking an adjournment to meet the appellant. However, the amicus was appointed only six days before the hearing and may not have had sufficient time to request a meeting with an incarcerated client. The Court places the responsibility primarily on the High Court to ensure that the directions are followed. Another concern is that the judgment does not prescribe a minimum period (e.g., 4 weeks) that an amicus should be given to prepare. Leaving it to the discretion of the High Court may lead to similar situations in the future, but the clear articulation of the principle will guide courts.

Practical impact: This judgment will be cited in all criminal appeals where an amicus is appointed in the absence of the accused’s counsel. High Courts will be required to ensure that the amicus is given reasonable time (certainly more than a few days) to study the record and to meet the accused (if in custody). It will also require High Courts to inform the accused (especially if incarcerated) of the hearing date and the fact that an amicus has been appointed, so that the accused may have the option to engage his own counsel or at least instruct the amicus. This may slow down the disposal of some appeals, but it will enhance the quality of justice.

9. Final Outcome

The Criminal Appeal was partly allowed.

• The impugned judgment and order dated 26th November 2025 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur was set aside.

• The appellant’s criminal appeal before the High Court stands revived on its file.

• The High Court is directed to list the appeal within 2 months from the date of this judgment (i.e., by 22nd July 2026).

• The same Division Bench (if available) or a Bench with at least one of the same members is requested to hear the appeal.

• Since the appellant wishes to be represented by his own counsel, there shall be no need to appoint an amicus if his counsel appears. If the appellant remains unrepresented, the Division Bench shall decide the appeal in such manner as it thinks fit and proper.

• All points on merit are kept open. The High Court shall not be influenced by any observations made in this judgment or in the impugned order.

• The appellant shall continue on bail (granted by the Supreme Court during the pendency of the SLP) pending the fresh hearing before the High Court.

• Pending applications stood disposed of.

10. Practical Application

For an accused whose appeal before the High Court is being heard in his absence: If your counsel does not appear on the date of hearing, and the High Court appoints an amicus, you may later challenge the dismissal if the amicus was not given reasonable time to prepare or an opportunity to meet with you. Keep a record of your incarceration status and any communications (or lack thereof) from the court. If the High Court disposes of the appeal within a few days of appointing the amicus, the Supreme Court may set aside the conviction and remand for a de novo hearing.

For a High Court hearing criminal appeals: When an accused’s counsel is absent, consider first issuing a notice to the accused (especially if in custody) informing him of the hearing date and the fact that his counsel is not appearing. If an amicus is appointed, give the amicus sufficient time (at least a few weeks) to study the record and to meet the accused (if in custody). Arrange for the amicus to have access to the accused in jail. Only after such steps have been completed should the appeal be heard and decided. Failure to do so may result in the Supreme Court setting aside the judgment and remanding the matter.

For an amicus curiae appointed in a criminal appeal: Immediately after appointment, request the court for an adjournment of at least a few weeks to study the record. If the accused is in custody, seek the court’s direction to the jail authorities to allow you to meet and confer with the accused. Ensure that you have a meaningful conference with the accused to understand his defence, his version of events, and any points he wishes to raise. If the court refuses to grant time, record your objection and seek a written order. This will help the accused in any subsequent challenge.

For the jail authorities: When a court appoints an amicus curiae for a convicted prisoner, facilitate the amicus’s access to the prisoner. Allow meetings during jail visiting hours, and provide a private room if possible. Maintain a record of such meetings. If the amicus is unable to meet due to logistical reasons (e.g., remote location), inform the court immediately.

For a legal services authority (SLSA/DLSA): If the High Court appoints an amicus for an unrepresented accused, ensure that the amicus is paid adequate fees and is provided with the complete record of the case. The authority may also arrange for the amicus to meet the accused in jail.

11. Court Lines

Line 1 (Legal aid must be substantive – Para 10):
“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.”

Line 2 (Prudent to inform the accused – Para 10):
“It would have been a prudent and desirable step had the appellant been intimated of the same. This acquires added significance in light of the consistent view taken by this Court that legal aid… must not be a mere ritual.”

Line 3 (Reasonable time and opportunity to meet – Para 11):
“First, that the amicus must be afforded reasonable time to prepare the matter; and second, that adequate opportunity must be granted to the amicus to meet and confer with the accused/convict concerned. Admittedly, neither of these directions appear to have been complied with in the present case.”

Line 4 (Scrupulous compliance – Para 12):
“We therefore reiterate, at the cost of repetition, that the directions issued in Anokhi Lal (supra), as well as the observations made in Bhola Mahto (supra), must be followed scrupulously, in addition to adherence to the relevant rules governing the business and procedure of the courts concerned.”

Line 5 (Remand – Para 16):
“Taking note of the fact that the appellant is a septuagenarian, it would be eminently desirable if the Division Bench decides the appeal as early as possible from the date of first hearing. All points on merit are kept open to be urged by the appellant and the respondent before the High Court.”

12. Legal Strategy Insight

For an accused whose appeal was dismissed after an amicus was appointed without adequate time: Immediately file a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. In the SLP, emphasise the following: (i) you were in custody and were not informed of the hearing or the appointment of the amicus; (ii) the amicus was appointed only a few days before the hearing; (iii) the amicus never met or conferred with you; (iv) the High Court did not give the amicus reasonable time to prepare or to meet you. Cite Anokhi Lal, Bhola Mahto, and this judgment. The Supreme Court is likely to set aside the judgment and remand the appeal for a de novo hearing.

For a lawyer filing an SLP on behalf of a convicted accused: Immediately after the High Court dismisses the appeal, obtain the court’s order sheet to see when the amicus was appointed and when the appeal was heard. If the gap is short (e.g., less than a month), argue that the amicus was not given reasonable time to prepare. Also check if there is any record of the amicus having met the accused. If not, argue that the accused was denied effective representation. The Supreme Court may not examine the merits of the conviction but may remand on procedural grounds.

For a public prosecutor (State) opposing such an SLP: Try to produce evidence that the amicus was given sufficient time (e.g., if the amicus was appointed weeks or months before the hearing) and that the amicus had the opportunity to meet the accused (e.g., through jail visits). If the accused was represented by his own counsel for most of the proceedings and only at the final hearing his counsel was absent, argue that the accused had ample opportunity earlier to instruct his counsel. However, if the accused was in custody and was never informed, the State may have difficulty opposing the remand.

For a High Court judge: Before disposing of a criminal appeal in the absence of the accused’s counsel, consider the following checklist: (i) Has the accused (if in custody) been informed of the hearing date and the fact that his counsel is not appearing? (ii) If an amicus is appointed, has the amicus been given sufficient time (at least 3-4 weeks) to study the record and prepare? (iii) Has the amicus been given an opportunity to meet the accused (if in custody)? (iv) Have all these steps been recorded in the order sheet? If any of these steps are missing, it may be better to adjourn the matter rather than risk a remand by the Supreme Court.

For a legal aid committee (NALSA, SLSA): Train panel lawyers (who may be appointed as amicus) to request an adjournment immediately upon appointment if they have not had time to prepare or meet the accused. Provide standard formats for such requests. Create a protocol for jail visits for amicus. Monitor the appointment of amicus in criminal appeals to ensure that the court is not disposing of matters too hastily. If repeated violations are noticed, bring them to the attention of the High Court or the Supreme Court.