Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Jhonson Danial Disoza, a prisoner, preferred a criminal appeal through jail against his conviction. Since he did not engage an advocate, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court appointed Ms. Rajeshree Kakkanwar, advocate, as amicus curiae to represent him. The appeal was called out for hearing on the previous day, but the amicus curiae did not appear, leading to an adjournment. On the next day, she again failed to appear. The court noted the lack of interest and, being constrained, directed the registry to strike off her name from the panel of amicus curiae. The court then called another advocate from the panel, Ms. Smita R. Gaidhani, who expressed willingness to prepare the case. The court appointed her as amicus curiae and adjourned the hearing to enable her to prepare.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Amicus Curiae - Non-Appearance - Court's Power to Remove from Panel - The court appointed an amicus curiae to represent the appellant in a criminal appeal. The advocate failed to appear on two consecutive hearing dates without any explanation. The court held that such conduct shows lack of interest and directed the registry to strike off the advocate's name from the panel of amicus curiae. (Paras 1-2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the court can strike off the name of an amicus curiae from the panel for failing to appear without justification.
Final Decision
The court directed the registry to strike off the name of Ms. Rajeshree Kakkanwar from the panel of amicus curiae. The court appointed Ms. Smita R. Gaidhani as amicus curiae and adjourned the hearing to enable her to prepare the case.
Law Points
- Duty of amicus curiae to appear
- Court's power to remove from panel for non-appearance
