SC directs all state standing counsel to consider convenience note submitted by Adv. Sumeer as standard format to present cases on behalf of states

MATTER IN ISSUE

• Advocate Sumeer Sodhi had appeared on behalf of State of Chattisgarh in a criminal appeal preferred by the accused in a murder case titled Kaushal Verma v. State of Chhattisgarh (Cr. Appeal No. 843/2020).

• The bench of the Supreme Court comprised of Justices Vineet Saran and S. Ravindra Bhat headed by Justice Uday Umesh Lalit.

• The contention of the appellants in this case was that their case stood on the similar footing as that of other four accused whose appeals were allowed by the Supreme Court in an earlier judgment.

THE CONVENIENCE NOTE

• The advocate submitted to the bench a ‘convenience note’ in which he briefly and succinctly described the details of FIR, accused persons, history of proceedings and also the legal submissions on behalf of the state.

• The Court reproduced this Convenience Note in its judgment. The Note was three to five pages long.

• The Court remarked that the presentation made by Mr. Sumeer Sodhi in the Convenience Note is an illustration how a case can be presented on behalf of the State.

DECISION OF THE SC

• The Court proceeded to suggest that the Convenience Note may be taken as the Standard Format by all the learned counsel appearing for various State Governments in the Supreme Court.

• The court also directed the Registry to circulate copies of this Order to all the learned Standing Counsel for the States.

• The Court held that it is satisfied that the role attributed to the present appellants was not in any way different from that attributed to the other four acquitted accused and thereby allowed the appeal filed by the accused.

What do you think about the Supreme Court’s decision? Let us know in the comments section below!