In a significant ruling aimed at safeguarding fair trial rights, the Supreme Court has held that Trial Courts must explicitly inform accused persons of their right to legal representation and their entitlement to legal aid if they cannot afford a counsel. The Court further directed that courts must record the offer made to the accused, their response, and the action taken in their orders before the examination of witnesses begins.
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran issued these directions while hearing a criminal appeal filed by Reginamary Chellamani. The Court observed a procedural gap where the accused had failed to cross-examine witnesses initially due to a lack of legal assistance. Consequently, the Bench mandated that all Trial Courts must strictly adopt the procedure of recording the offer of legal aid to ensuring that no accused goes unrepresented due to a lack of awareness or resources.
Background of the Case
The observations came during the hearing of an appeal against the Madras High Court’s order dated July 24, 2025, which had denied bail to the appellant. Reginamary Chellamani was facing trial for offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, and the Customs Act, 1962, involving a commercial quantity of contraband.
The Supreme Court noted a critical fact in the trial history: the appellant had not cross-examined the witnesses at the initial stage. It was only after she later engaged her own counsel and successfully applied for re-examination that she was permitted to question the witnesses.
Supreme Court’s Directive on Legal Aid
Addressing the situation where an accused might proceed without counsel during critical stages like witness examination, the Supreme Court laid down a strict protocol for Trial Courts.
The Bench observed:
“It is incumbent upon the trial Courts dealing with criminal proceedings, faced with such situations, to inform the accused of their right to legal representation and their entitlement to be represented by legal aid counsel in the event they cannot afford a counsel.”
To ensure this right is not merely theoretical, the Court issued a specific procedural mandate:
“The trial Courts shall record the offer made to the accused in this regard, the response of the accused to such offer and also the action taken thereupon in their orders, before commencing examination of the witnesses.”
The Court emphasized that “This procedure requires to be adopted and put in practice scrupulously.”
Directions to High Courts
To ensure nationwide implementation, the Supreme Court directed that its order be communicated to the Chief Justices of all High Courts. This is to enable “suitable instructions being issued in this regard to all the concerned trial Courts within the State.”
Grant of Bail
While establishing this procedural safeguard, the Court also granted relief to the appellant. The Bench considered that Reginamary Chellamani had been in custody for 4 years, 1 month, and 28 days. Additionally, a co-accused travelling on the same flight had already been granted bail by the Supreme Court.
Based on the length of incarceration and parity, the Court set aside the impugned order of the Madras High Court and directed the appellant’s release on bail, subject to stringent terms fixed by the Trial Court. The appellant was also directed to surrender her passport and cooperate with the expeditious conclusion of the trial.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Reginamary Chellamani v. State Rep by Superintendent of Customs
- Case Number: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 18886/2025 (2026 INSC 127)
- Coram: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
