2026 Supreme(Mad) 1557

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.R. SWAMINATHAN, V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, JJ.
Chinnavan @ Govindaraj – Appellant
Versus 
The State Rep by the Inspector of Police – Respondent 
Crl.Appeal No.1185 of 2022
Decided on : 29-05-2026

The right to present oral arguments is an essential facet of a fair trial under Article 21. Trial courts cannot dispense with oral hearings; if defense counsel fails to participate, the court is obligated to appoint an amicus curiae to protect the accused's rights and ensure due process.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure - Sections 234, 235(1), and 314(1) - Constitution of India - Article 21 - Criminal Trial - Right to fair trial - Right to oral arguments - Requirement of oral hearing before judgment - Whether trial court can dispense with oral submissions due to non-cooperation of defense counsel - Held, right to present oral arguments is a statutory and fundamental right integral to fair trial - Trial court must appoint amicus curiae if defense fails to argue - Dispensation of oral hearing is a significant procedural error that cannot be cured simply by granting a hearing at the appellate stage - Procedural fairness mandates that arguments precede the pronouncement of judgment. (Paras 7, 8, 11, 14)

Facts of the case:
In a criminal trial, the trial court convicted the accused without hearing oral arguments from the defense. Despite multiple opportunities, the defense counsel remained uncooperative and failed to participate in the final stages of the trial. Relying on a direction to conclude the trial within a stipulated duration, the trial Judge proceeded to deliver the judgment based solely on the available evidentiary records, determining that the defense had effectively waived its right by non-participation.

Findings of Court:
The appellate court determined that the trial court's decision to dispense with the oral arguments was legally unsustainable, as the statutory framework explicitly requires the court to pronounce judgment only after hearing the arguments of both parties.

Issues: 1. Whether a trial court is empowered to deliver a judgment of conviction without conducting the required oral arguments when the defense fails to appear or cooperate. 2. Whether a failure to allow oral arguments at the trial stage can be ratified by providing an opportunity for arguments during the appellate proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the right to present oral arguments is an essential manifestation of the fundamental right to a fair trial. If defense counsel fails to discharge their duty, the trial court is under a positive obligation to appoint an amicus curiae to ensure legal representation and procedural compliance. The appellate court cannot rectify this jurisdictional defect merely by hearing the parties, as the trial venue is the primary and substantive forum for oral advocacy which cannot be bypassed.

Result: Appeal allowed; trial court judgment set aside; case remanded for hearing arguments before a fresh pronouncement.