Why does the Supreme Court appoint senior lawyers as amicus curiae or ‘friend of the court’ and embrace their talents when parties involved in the case have already hired lawyers of their own? Are we not capable of assisting the judges? Is appointing an amicus a comment on our professional capacity to defend clients?
These questions were directed at a three-judge Bench led by Justice Dipak Misra by advocate G.S. Mani, a defence lawyer in the Delhi gang rape case, on Monday in open court.
Caught unawaresMr. Mani’s queries, interspersed with profuse apologies at the Bench for questioning its discretion, seemed to have caught the court unawares.
He was referring to the Bench’s decision on April 8, 2016 to appoint senior advocates Raju Ramachandran and Sanjay Hegde as amici curiae to “assist” the court in the appeals of Mukesh, Pawan, Vinay and Akshay, condemned to death for the brutal rape and murder of a 23-year-old on December 16, 2012. In a patient response to the lawyer, Justice Misra explained that amicus curiae is appointed to help the court view a case in “multiple dimensions.”
In a bid to reassure Mr. Mani, Justice Misra told him about how the court had similarly appointed two amici curiae while hearing the petitions against the criminal defamation law. “The entire court was filled with senior advocates, the likes of Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, senior advocates P.P. Rao and Kapil Sibal ... yet we appointed Mr. T.R. Andhyaarujina and Mr. K. Parasaran as amicus ... Our appointing an amicus is not a comment on your prowess as a lawyer.”
Bench to work more hoursThe Bench, led by Justice Misra, agreed to work extra hours — from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. to fast-track the hearing of the appeals from July 18.
