Madras High Court: Accused’s Right To Make Oral Arguments Is Part Of Fair Trial, Murder Conviction Set Aside

The Madras High Court has held that an accused person’s right to present oral arguments before a court is not merely a procedural safeguard under criminal law but an essential component of the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court ruled that a trial judge cannot pronounce a judgment without hearing the defence and must appoint an amicus curiae or legal aid counsel if the defence lawyer fails to appear or argue the case.

The ruling came while hearing an appeal filed by a father and son who had been convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. During the proceedings, the High Court found that the trial court had delivered its judgment after hearing only the prosecution because the defence counsel repeatedly failed to advance arguments despite several opportunities.

A Division Bench comprising Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice V. Lakshminarayanan observed that oral advocacy is a vital feature of India’s adversarial justice system and forms an integral part of a fair trial. The Court stressed that even if a defence lawyer remains absent, the accused cannot be deprived of the opportunity to have their case argued.

Examining the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Bench held that arguments must precede the pronouncement of judgment and that courts do not possess the power to completely dispense with oral submissions. Finding that the accused had been denied a fair hearing, the High Court set aside the conviction and remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh consideration after hearing defence arguments, directing that an amicus be appointed if necessary.