https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206222 The SC held that criminal cases should not proceed against an accused in the absence of counsel, even when counsel fails to appear due to negligence or deliberate absence. The Court ruled that an accused should not suffer for counsel's fault and must appoint an amicus curiae to defend the accused in such situations. This principle stems from Article 22(1) which guarantees assistance by counsel and requires the widest construction to effectuate constitutional intent. The accused may either engage new counsel or proceed with the court-appointed amicus curiae. en-us Thu, 24 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 May 2025 15:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206222 The SC held that criminal cases should not proceed against an accused in the absence of counsel, even when counsel fails to appear due to negligence or deliberate absence. The Court ruled that an accused should not suffer for counsel's fault and must appoint an amicus curiae to defend the accused in such situations. This principle stems from Article 22(1) which guarantees assistance by counsel and requires the widest construction to effectuate constitutional intent. The accused may either engage new counsel or proceed with the court-appointed amicus curiae. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 24 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206222