Number of words: 231<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Liberty of a citizen cannot be taken away in this manner, the Supreme Court has said while setting aside the Punjab and Haryana High Court order which had dismissed a plea filed by a man on the grounds that his lawyer had remained absent on four occasions during the hearing. The apex court observed that the high court was manifestly in error in rejecting the revision in default and it ought to have appointed another lawyer as amicus curiae to assist it in the matter which pertained to conviction under the Arms Act.
The high court, in our view, was manifestly in error in rejecting the revision in default, on the ground that the appellant\u2019s advocate had remained absent on the previous four occasions, a bench headed by Justice DY Chandrachud said. Since the revision before the high court arose out of an order of the conviction under the Arms Act, the high court ought to have appointed an amicus curiae in the absence of counsel, who has been engaged by the legal services authority, Rohtak. The liberty of a citizen cannot be taken away in this manner, the bench, also comprising Justices Indu Malhotra and Indira Banerjee, said in its November 16 order. The top court allowed the appeal filed by the man and set aside the February 11 and July 16 orders of the high court.
Excerpted from https:\/\/www.news18.com\/news\/india\/liberty-cant-be-taken-away-in-this-manner-sc-sets-aside-hc-order-dismissing-plea-after-lawyers-multiple-absence-3105389.html<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"