Amicus curiae is Latin for “friend of the court”. In Indian courts it means a lawyer whom the court itself asks to help it in a case. Sometimes the amicus argues for a person who has no lawyer, such as a prisoner who writes to the Supreme Court from jail. Sometimes the amicus helps the court on a question of law or public interest.
The key point is who chooses the amicus: the court, not a party. In the Supreme Court, the amicus is assigned through the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or a Registry panel and paid by the State at fixed rates.
Amicus curiae at a glance
- Meaning: Latin for “friend of the court”; in Indian law, a lawyer whose help the court itself asks for (as used in the Family Courts Act, 1984, Section 13 proviso, and the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Order IV Rule 1(c)).
- In Hindi: न्याय-मित्र – the word used in the official Hindi text of Section 13 of the Family Courts Act.
- Plural: amici curiae.
- Who appoints: the court; in the Supreme Court, the Registrar may require the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee to assign an advocate (Order IV Rule 1(c); Order XXII Rule 7).
- Criminal cases: if an accused in a trial or appeal has no advocate and no means, the court “shall assign an advocate for his defence at the expense of the State” (Section 341 BNSS, formerly Section 304 CrPC).
- Experience rule: where a life or death sentence is possible, only advocates with at least 10 years’ practice should be considered, with normally at least seven days to prepare (Anokhilal, Supreme Court, 2019).
- Fees in the Supreme Court: ₹6,000 at the admission stage and ₹10,000 at final hearing, unless the Court orders otherwise (Second Schedule to the Supreme Court Rules; Supreme Court Handbook, updated 6 October 2025).
- Not an intervenor: an intervenor comes on his own, because he is interested in the case or in a question of law in it (compare Order I Rule 8A CPC); the amicus is asked by the court.
Reviewed and updated by Century Law Firm, Delhi – October 2026. Statutory references are to the Acts as in force on that date. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (as on 6 October 2025), the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (as on 10 January 2026), the Family Courts Act, 1984 (English and official Hindi texts), the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and the Constitution are cited from India Code, the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 from the Gazette copy on the Supreme Court’s website, and the judgments from the courts’ own copies.
What does amicus curiae mean in law?
Word for word, amicus means “friend” and curiae means “of the court”. The correct spelling is amicus curiae (not “amicus curie”); the plural is amici curiae.
No Indian Act defines the term, but the official texts show how it is used. The Family Courts Act, 1984 says that no party before a Family Court is entitled as of right to be represented by a lawyer, and then adds in Section 13: “Provided that if the Family Court considers it necessary in the interest of justice, it may seek the assistance of a legal expert as amicus curiae.” The Supreme Court Rules, 2013 speak of “an Advocate” who “may be appointed as Amicus Curiae” for a party who cannot argue his own case (Order IV Rule 1(c)).
Who appoints an amicus curiae, and when?
The table shows where the law provides for the court to appoint one.
| Court and situation | Provision | What it says |
|---|---|---|
| Supreme Court: jail petitions, party-in-person, unrepresented respondent | Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Order IV Rule 1(c) | The Secretary General or Registrar “may require the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee to assign an Advocate, who may assist the Court on behalf of such person”. |
| Supreme Court: criminal special leave petition from jail | Order XXII Rule 7 | The Registrar directs engagement of an advocate from the Committee’s panel, or assigns a Panel Advocate at the cost of the State. |
| Supreme Court: appeals by indigent persons | Order XVIII Rule 11 | Where the party has no advocate of his choice, the Court may direct engagement of an advocate from the Committee’s panel or at the cost of the State. |
| Criminal trials and appeals (Section 341(1); under Section 341(3) the State Government may extend it to other classes of trials) | Section 341 BNSS (formerly Section 304 CrPC) | An accused without an advocate and without sufficient means gets an advocate assigned by the court at the expense of the State. |
| Civil suits and proceedings | Order I Rule 10A CPC | The court may “request any pleader to address it” for an interest likely to be affected whose holder has no pleader. |
| Family Courts | Family Courts Act, 1984, Section 13 proviso | The Family Court may seek the help of a legal expert “as amicus curiae” in the interest of justice. |
In the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court Rules, 2013 provide for an assigned advocate in jail petitions, party-in-person matters and appeals by indigent persons (Order XVIII Rule 11). A person in jail can send a petition through the jail officer; once the papers are complete, Order XXII Rule 7 says the Registrar “shall direct engagement of an Advocate from the panel of Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, or assign a Panel Advocate at the cost of the state”. The Handbook adds that this advocate acts “as an amicus curiae on behalf of the accused”, is “advised to contact the prisoner”, and is given the papers to draft the petition, prepare the paper books and submit them to the Registry within fifteen days.
A party who wants to argue his own case must first apply for permission, giving reasons and saying whether he is willing to accept an advocate appointed by the Court. The Registrar then meets him and reports whether he can help the Court properly “or an Advocate may be appointed as Amicus Curiae” (Order IV Rule 1(c), proviso). He may argue in person only if the Court allows the application.
Where the High Court has confirmed or awarded a death sentence, the Rules require a Bench of at least three Judges (Order VI Rules 3–4) but have no separate amicus rule; the guidance on choosing counsel comes from Anokhilal, discussed below.
In criminal trials and appeals: Section 341 BNSS
Section 340 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 303 CrPC) gives every accused the right to “be defended by an advocate of his choice”. Section 341(1) (formerly Section 304 CrPC) then says: “Where, in a trial or appeal before a Court, the accused is not represented by an advocate, and where it appears to the Court that the accused has not sufficient means to engage an advocate, the Court shall assign an advocate for his defence at the expense of the State.”
The old Section 304(1), as quoted by the Supreme Court in 2012, began “Where, in a trial before the Court of Session”; the BNSS wording covers “a trial or appeal before a Court”, though sub-section (3) still lets the State Government extend the section by notification to classes of trials before other courts. Under Section 341(2), the High Court may, with the State Government’s approval, make rules on how these advocates are selected and “the fees payable to such advocates by the Government”. Courts also call such an advocate the amicus curiae, as the trial court did in the Delhi case described below.
In civil and family cases
The Code of Civil Procedure does not use the words “amicus curiae”, but Order I Rule 10A gives civil courts the same power (see the table). In Family Courts, where no party has a right to a lawyer, Section 13 of the Family Courts Act fills the gap.
In PIL and letter petitions
In public interest litigation, and in cases a court takes up on its own (suo motu), there may be no private lawyer to present the issue. The Supreme Court’s prison case began with a letter of 13 June 2013 from Justice R.C. Lahoti, a former Chief Justice of India, about conditions in 1382 prisons. On 18 September 2015 the Court recorded that an advocate “has agreed to assist us in the matter as Amicus Curiae since the complaint was received by Post” (Re – Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, order of 5 February 2016). For the writ that protects a person held in custody, see habeas corpus.
Prepared by Century Law Firm from the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 (Orders IV and XXII, Second Schedule), Section 341 BNSS, Order I Rules 8A and 10A CPC, and Anokhilal v. State of M.P. (Supreme Court, 2019) (official texts).
Amicus curiae and free legal aid
When an amicus is assigned to an accused at State expense, it is a form of free legal aid; in Anokhilal the Supreme Court framed its inquiry in exactly those terms: whether, “while granting free Legal Aid”, the appellant got real and meaningful assistance. Article 39A of the Constitution directs the State to “provide free legal aid, by suitable legislation or schemes or in any other way, to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities”.
Under Section 12 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, those entitled to legal services include members of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, a woman or a child, a person with disability, an industrial workman, a person “in custody”, and a person below the income limit in Section 12(h) (the Act’s 1987 figures, ₹9,000 a year for other courts and ₹12,000 for the Supreme Court, may be raised by the governments; ask the State or District Legal Services Authority for the current limit). The authority must be satisfied that the person has a prima facie case (Section 13). For the Supreme Court, Section 3A sets up the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, chaired by a sitting Judge of the Supreme Court; in jail and indigent cases the Supreme Court Rules use its panel, or a panel advocate at the cost of the State.
Role and duties of an amicus curiae
For an accused, the amicus’s duty is a real defence, not a formality. In Anokhilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal Nos. 62–63 of 2014, decided 18 December 2019), the Supreme Court set aside the conviction and death sentence and directed fresh consideration. The Court said its discussion was confined to “whether, while granting free Legal Aid, the appellant was extended real and meaningful assistance or not”. It then laid down four norms (paragraph 22; U.U. Lalit, Indu Malhotra and Krishna Murari, JJ.):
- Where there is a possibility of a life sentence or death sentence, “learned Advocates who have put in minimum of 10 years practice at the Bar alone be considered to be appointed as Amicus Curiae or through legal services to represent an accused”.
- In High Court matters “concerning confirmation of death sentence, Senior Advocates of the Court must first be considered to be appointed as Amicus Curiae”.
- An amicus should get reasonable time to prepare; there is no fixed rule, but “a minimum of seven days’ time may normally be considered to be appropriate and adequate”.
- An amicus appointed for the accused “must normally be granted to have meetings and discussion with the concerned accused”.
In an earlier case, Mohd. Hussain @ Julfikar Ali v. State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi (Supreme Court, 11 January 2012, decided under Sections 303 and 304 CrPC), an accused was sentenced to death by a Delhi Sessions Court, and an amicus was appointed only after his own lawyer stopped appearing. Justice H.L. Dattu found that he “was not provided the assistance of a counsel in a substantial and meaningful sense”, and Justice Chandramauli Kr. Prasad held the conviction “vitiated, not on merit but on the ground that his trial was not fair and just”. The two judges differed on the remedy (a fresh trial, or deportation without a retrial and jail custody until then), and on 31 August 2012 a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court sent the case back for a de novo trial from the stage of prosecution evidence.
When the amicus assists the court rather than a party, the work varies. In the prison case, the amicus reported to the Court that Under Trial Review Committees had been set up in every district. In Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur (2017), as the Constitution Bench recorded in Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan (2023), “The learned Amicus Curiae submitted” that the six-month waiting period for mutual consent divorce “is directory and can be waived” in exceptional situations, and the Court then laid down when it can be waived (see mutual consent divorce). The amicus puts the points forward; the decision remains the court’s.
Is an amicus curiae paid?
In the Supreme Court, yes, when engaged at the cost of the State. The Second Schedule to the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 fixes the “Fee to the Amicus Curiae appointed by the Court” at “6,000/- upto admission stage and 10,000/- on final disposal stage or hearing on regular side after admission/grant of leave, or as directed by the Court/Chief Justice”. The Supreme Court’s Handbook (updated as on 6 October 2025) gives the same figures: a certificate (Form No. 10) is issued, the State pays within three months, and no fee is payable if the advocate was absent.
Outside the Supreme Court, Section 341(2)(c) BNSS lets the High Court, with the State Government’s approval, make rules on the fees payable by the Government to advocates assigned under Section 341; advocates provided through a Legal Services Authority are paid under that authority’s scheme. These rules and schemes differ from State to State and are not quoted here.
Amicus curiae, intervenor and other lawyers in court
| Who | Why in court | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Amicus curiae | Asked by the court to assist it, or to represent a person who has no lawyer | Family Courts Act, Section 13; Supreme Court Rules, Order IV Rule 1(c) |
| Intervenor | A person or body “interested in any question of law” in a suit, allowed to present its opinion in the public interest | Order I Rule 8A CPC |
| Legal aid or State counsel | Assigned to an accused without means; often called the amicus | Section 341 BNSS; Legal Services Authorities Act, Section 12 |
| Attorney-General for India | Advises the Government of India on legal matters | Article 76 of the Constitution |
For the other titles used in court (Public Prosecutor, Advocate General, Solicitor General), see PP full form and lawyer vs advocate.
एमिकस क्यूरी का अर्थ हिंदी में (Amicus Curiae Meaning in Hindi)
एमिकस क्यूरी (amicus curiae) लैटिन शब्द है, जिसका शाब्दिक अर्थ है “न्यायालय का मित्र”। हिंदी में इसके लिए “न्याय-मित्र” शब्द का प्रयोग होता है। कुटुम्ब न्यायालय अधिनियम, 1984 के आधिकारिक हिंदी पाठ (India Code) की धारा 13 के परन्तुक में यही शब्द है: “परन्तु यदि कुटुम्ब न्यायालय न्याय के हित में यह आवश्यक समझता है तो वह किसी विधि विशेषज्ञ की न्याय-मित्र के रूप में सहायता ले सकेगा ।” एक से अधिक हों तो अंग्रेज़ी में “amici curiae” लिखा जाता है।
न्याय-मित्र वह अधिवक्ता है जिसे न्यायालय स्वयं किसी मामले में सहायता के लिए नियुक्त करता है। उसे कोई पक्षकार फीस देकर नहीं रखता। वह या तो ऐसे व्यक्ति की ओर से बहस करता है जिसके पास वकील नहीं है, जैसे जेल से याचिका भेजने वाला कैदी, या किसी कानूनी प्रश्न अथवा जनहित के मामले में न्यायालय की सहायता करता है।
आपराधिक मामलों में भारतीय नागरिक सुरक्षा संहिता, 2023 की धारा 341 (पहले दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता की धारा 304) के अनुसार, यदि विचारण या अपील में अभियुक्त के पास अधिवक्ता नहीं है और उसके पास अधिवक्ता रखने के पर्याप्त साधन नहीं हैं, तो न्यायालय राज्य के खर्च पर उसके बचाव के लिए अधिवक्ता नियुक्त करेगा। धारा 340 हर अभियुक्त को अपनी पसंद का अधिवक्ता रखने का अधिकार देती है। (यह सारांश हमारे अपने शब्दों में है।)
सुप्रीम कोर्ट में सुप्रीम कोर्ट नियम, 2013 के अनुसार जेल से आई याचिका या स्वयं पैरवी करने वाले पक्षकार के मामले में रजिस्ट्रार सुप्रीम कोर्ट विधिक सेवा समिति से अधिवक्ता उपलब्ध कराने को कह सकता है। दीवानी मामलों में सिविल प्रक्रिया संहिता के आदेश 1 नियम 10A के तहत न्यायालय किसी वकील से ऐसे व्यक्ति के हित पर बोलने का अनुरोध कर सकता है जिसका कोई वकील नहीं है। जनहित याचिका में भी, जैसे देश की 1382 जेलों की स्थिति वाले मामले में, सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने डाक से आई शिकायत पर एक अधिवक्ता को न्याय-मित्र बनाया।
अनोखीलाल बनाम मध्य प्रदेश राज्य (2019) में सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने कहा कि जिन मामलों में आजीवन कारावास या मृत्युदंड हो सकता है, उनमें कम से कम 10 वर्ष की वकालत वाले अधिवक्ता को ही न्याय-मित्र या विधिक सहायता वकील बनाने पर विचार हो; हाईकोर्ट में मृत्युदंड की पुष्टि के मामलों में पहले वरिष्ठ अधिवक्ताओं पर विचार हो; तैयारी के लिए सामान्यतः कम से कम सात दिन मिलें; और न्याय-मित्र को अभियुक्त से मिलने और बात करने दिया जाए।
फीस: सुप्रीम कोर्ट में राज्य के खर्च पर नियुक्त न्याय-मित्र को प्रवेश (एडमिशन) स्तर पर ₹6,000 और अंतिम सुनवाई पर ₹10,000 मिलते हैं, जब तक न्यायालय अन्यथा आदेश न दे। अन्य अदालतों में धारा 341(2)(ग) BNSS के तहत हाईकोर्ट राज्य के खर्च पर नियुक्त बचाव अधिवक्ताओं की फीस के नियम बना सकता है; विधिक सेवा प्राधिकरण के पैनल वकीलों को प्राधिकरण की अपनी योजना के अनुसार भुगतान होता है। मुफ्त विधिक सहायता का आधार संविधान का अनुच्छेद 39A और विधिक सेवा प्राधिकरण अधिनियम, 1987 है, जिसकी धारा 12 में अनुसूचित जाति और जनजाति के सदस्य, महिलाएँ, बच्चे, दिव्यांग व्यक्ति, औद्योगिक कर्मकार और अभिरक्षा में रखे गए व्यक्ति और निर्धारित आय-सीमा से कम आय वाले व्यक्ति शामिल हैं।
Frequently asked questions
Amicus curiae is Latin for “friend of the court”. In Indian law it means a lawyer whose help the court itself asks for, either to represent a person who has no lawyer or to assist the court on an issue. No Act defines it, but the Family Courts Act, 1984 (Section 13) lets a Family Court “seek the assistance of a legal expert as amicus curiae”, and the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 (Order IV Rule 1(c)) provide that “an Advocate may be appointed as Amicus Curiae”.
In Latin, amicus means “friend” and curiae means “of the court”. In Indian court orders “the amicus” is short for the amicus curiae, the lawyer the court has appointed to assist it in that case.
न्याय-मित्र. The official Hindi text of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (कुटुम्ब न्यायालय अधिनियम, 1984) on India Code uses this word in the proviso to Section 13: the Family Court may take the help of a legal expert “न्याय-मित्र के रूप में”. Literally, एमिकस क्यूरी means “न्यायालय का मित्र”.
The plural is amici curiae, used when a court appoints more than one lawyer to assist it in the same matter. Each has the same role as a single amicus curiae.
The court does. A party cannot engage an amicus. In the Supreme Court, the Secretary General or Registrar may require the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee to assign an advocate in jail and party-in-person matters (Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Order IV Rule 1(c); Order XXII Rule 7). In criminal trials and appeals the court assigns an advocate at State expense under Section 341 BNSS (formerly Section 304 CrPC), and civil courts may request a pleader to address them under Order I Rule 10A CPC.
When someone whose interests are at stake has no lawyer, or the court needs help no party will give: an accused without means (Section 341 BNSS); a jail petition or party-in-person in the Supreme Court (Order IV Rule 1(c)); a Family Court case in the interest of justice (Family Courts Act, Section 13); or a public-interest complaint received by post (the 1382 Prisons case).
To assist the court. When appointed for an accused, the amicus must give “real and meaningful assistance” (Anokhilal v. State of M.P., Supreme Court, 2019); in Mohd. Hussain (2012) the death sentence was set aside and a fresh trial ordered because the accused lacked such help. When assisting the court on an issue, the amicus reports information or argues the legal question, as in the 1382 Prisons case and Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur (2017). The decision remains the court’s.
An advocate the court considers suitable. In the Supreme Court, advocates in jail and indigent matters come from the panel of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or a panel kept by the Registry (Supreme Court Rules, Orders IV, XVIII and XXII). Where a life or death sentence is possible, Anokhilal (2019) says only advocates with at least 10 years’ practice should be considered, and High Courts should first consider Senior Advocates in death confirmation cases.
When engaged at the cost of the State, yes. In the Supreme Court the fee is ₹6,000 up to the admission stage and ₹10,000 at the final disposal or regular hearing stage, unless the Court or Chief Justice directs otherwise (Second Schedule to the Supreme Court Rules, 2013; Supreme Court Handbook updated 6 October 2025). The State pays within three months on a certificate, and nothing is payable if the advocate was absent. In other courts, Section 341(2)(c) BNSS lets the High Court make rules on the fees of State-assigned defence advocates, and legal services authorities pay their own panel lawyers; those rates are not quoted here.
In the Supreme Court, yes, but only with the Court’s permission. In a trial court, the BNSS gives the accused a right to be defended by an advocate of his choice (Section 340) and puts a duty on the court to assign one at State expense where he is unrepresented and lacks means (Section 341); it does not itself set out a procedure for refusing an assigned advocate. In the Supreme Court, a party who wants to argue in person must first apply, giving reasons and saying whether he will accept an advocate appointed by the Court; the Registrar reports whether he can assist the Court or an amicus should be appointed, and he may argue in person only if the Court allows it (Order IV Rule 1(c), proviso).
The amicus is appointed by the court, not hired by a party, but may be appointed to argue for one side: the Supreme Court’s Handbook speaks of an advocate assigned “to act as an amicus curiae on behalf of the accused”. In public interest matters, the amicus assists the court rather than any party.
In Anokhilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (18 December 2019) the Court set aside the conviction and death sentence and directed fresh consideration, after examining whether the accused had received real and meaningful legal aid. It laid down four norms: at least 10 years’ practice where a life or death sentence is possible; Senior Advocates first in High Court death confirmations; normally at least seven days to prepare; and meetings with the accused.
Section 341 BNSS (formerly Section 304 CrPC) does not use the word amicus; it says “the Court shall assign an advocate for his defence at the expense of the State” where the accused has no advocate and not sufficient means. Courts also call this advocate the amicus curiae; in Mohd. Hussain (2012) the Delhi trial court’s judgment, as reproduced in the Supreme Court’s judgment, records that an advocate “was appointed as Amicus-Curiae to defend the accused at State expenses”.
An intervenor asks to join a case on his own because he or his organisation is interested in it or in a question of law it raises; under Order I Rule 8A CPC a court may allow a person or body “interested in any question of law” in a suit to present its opinion in the public interest. An amicus curiae does not come on his own: the court asks him to assist, either for an unrepresented person or on an issue.
Yes. Under Section 13 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, no party is entitled as of right to be represented by a lawyer before a Family Court, but “if the Family Court considers it necessary in the interest of justice, it may seek the assistance of a legal expert as amicus curiae”.
A committee constituted under Section 3A of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 by the National Legal Services Authority, with a sitting Judge of the Supreme Court as Chairman and members nominated by the Chief Justice of India. It provides legal aid in the Supreme Court to persons eligible under Section 12, and the Supreme Court Rules use its panel in jail, party-in-person and indigent matters.
From the courts’ own records: the Supreme Court’s prison case (amicus appointed on 18 September 2015 because the complaint came by post); Anokhilal (2019), a death-sentence appeal argued by an amicus; Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur (2017), where the amicus argued that the divorce waiting period can be waived; and a 2023 death reference in which the Madhya Pradesh High Court requested a Senior Counsel to act as amicus.
Conclusion
An amicus curiae is the court’s own choice of lawyer, appointed to speak for someone who has no lawyer or to help the court where no party will, under the Supreme Court Rules, Section 341 BNSS, Order I Rule 10A CPC or Section 13 of the Family Courts Act.
The Supreme Court’s decisions in Mohd. Hussain (2012) and Anokhilal (2019) show that an appointment in name only does not satisfy the law, especially where a life or a death sentence is at stake. For other Latin terms used in Indian courts, see Legal Maxims Explained.
Sources used for this post: Supreme Court Rules, 2013, Order IV Rule 1, Order VI Rules 3–4, Order XVIII Rule 11, Order XXII Rule 7 and Second Schedule Part I items 11–12 (Gazette of India Extraordinary, Part II Section 3(i), No. 2871, 29 May 2014), https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s3ec0490f1f4972d133619a60c30f3559e/uploads/2024/01/2024011691-1.pdf, with the 2024 and 2025 amendments listed at https://www.sci.gov.in/supreme-court-rules/ (none affects these provisions); Supreme Court Handbook on Practice and Procedure and Office Procedure 2017, updated as on 6 October 2025, Chapters V, XIV (para 15) and XV, https://cdn.s3waas.gov.in/s3ec0490f1f4972d133619a60c30f3559e/uploads/2025/12/2025121262.pdf; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Sections 340–341 (India Code, as on 6 October 2025), with the firm’s Gazette-checked mapping to Sections 303–304 CrPC; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order I Rules 8A and 10A (India Code, as on 10 January 2026); Family Courts Act, 1984, Sections 12–13, English and official Hindi texts (India Code, no “as on” date); Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, Sections 2(1)(c), 3A, 12 and 13 (India Code, no “as on” date); Constitution of India, Articles 39A and 76 (India Code); Mohd. Hussain @ Julfikar Ali v. The State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi, Criminal Appeal No. 1091 of 2006, Supreme Court, 11 January 2012 (H.L. Dattu and Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, JJ.), https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/38960.pdf, and the same appeal decided by R.M. Lodha, Anil R. Dave and Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, JJ. on 31 August 2012, https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/bosir/orderpdf/1573779.pdf; Re – Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, W.P.(C) No. 406 of 2013, Supreme Court, order of 5 February 2016 (Madan B. Lokur and R.K. Agrawal, JJ.), https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/43347.pdf; Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, T.P.(C) No. 1118 of 2014, Supreme Court (Constitution Bench), 1 May 2023, para 17 (recording Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur, 2017), https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2014/26304/26304_2014_2_1501_44203_Judgement_01-May-2023.pdf; Anokhilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal Nos. 62–63 of 2014, Supreme Court, 18 December 2019 (U.U. Lalit, Indu Malhotra and Krishna Murari, JJ.), paras 20–23, https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2013/25955/25955_2013_6_1501_19251_Judgement_18-Dec-2019.pdf; and In Reference v. Anokhilal, Criminal Reference No. 6 of 2022 with Criminal Appeal No. 11421 of 2022, High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, 11 September 2023 (Ravi Malimath, CJ and Vishal Mishra, J.), https://mphc.gov.in/upload/jabalpur/MPHCJB/2022/CRRFC/6/CRRFC_6_2022_FinalOrder_11-Sep-2023.pdf.
