Amicus curiae (Latin: "friend of the court") is an advocate, not representing any party, who is appointed by a court to assist it in matters of law, fact, or public importance, particularly where a party is unrepresented or the issues require independent expertise. Under Indian law, the power to appoint an amicus curiae derives from the inherent jurisdiction of courts, and the Supreme Court laid down specific guidelines for such appointments in Anokhilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2019).
Legal definition
Indian law does not contain a single statutory definition of "amicus curiae." The concept is rooted in the inherent power of courts to regulate their own proceedings and to seek assistance for the proper administration of justice.
The Supreme Court Rules, 2013 provide for the appointment of amicus curiae as part of the Court's practice and procedure under Article 145 of the Constitution. Order XV Rule 12 of the Supreme Court Rules makes provision for the Court to request assistance from an advocate who is not otherwise engaged in the matter.
The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (Section 12) also intersects with the amicus curiae concept by mandating free legal aid to persons entitled under the Act, though the formal amicus curiae appointment remains a creature of judicial discretion rather than statutory right.
In practice, the Supreme Court and High Courts appoint amici curiae in three principal situations: (1) when a party is unrepresented, particularly in criminal appeals involving serious sentences; (2) when the matter involves complex or novel questions of law requiring independent assistance; and (3) in public interest litigation or matters of constitutional importance where the Court benefits from perspectives beyond those of the formal parties.
How courts have interpreted this term
Anokhilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh Criminal Appeal Nos. 62-63/2014 (decided 18.12.2019)
The Supreme Court laid down specific guidelines for the appointment of amicus curiae in cases involving capital punishment or life sentences. The Court held that: (1) in all cases where there is a possibility of a life sentence or death sentence, the amicus curiae must be an advocate with a minimum of 10 years' experience at the Bar; (2) in matters before the High Court concerning confirmation of a death sentence, Senior Advocates must first be considered; (3) a minimum of seven days' time must be provided to the amicus curiae to prepare the matter; and (4) the amicus curiae must be permitted to meet and confer with the accused they are representing. The case arose after the Court found that the amicus curiae had been appointed on the same day charges were framed, leaving no time to study the brief, and the entire trial was completed in 13 days.
Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar AIR 1979 SC 1369
In this foundational public interest litigation, the Supreme Court addressed the plight of thousands of undertrial prisoners in Bihar who had been detained for periods exceeding the maximum punishment for the offences they were accused of. The Court directed the State to release the prisoners and, significantly, recognised that the right to free legal services and competent legal representation — including through amici curiae — is an essential element of "reasonable, fair and just" procedure under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241
Senior Advocate Fali S. Nariman appeared as amicus curiae and provided critical assistance to the Court in formulating the Vishaka Guidelines on prevention of sexual harassment at the workplace. The Court, with the assistance of the amicus curiae, laid down binding guidelines that constituted "law" under Article 141 of the Constitution until Parliament enacted the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. This case illustrates the amicus curiae's role in shaping legal policy on matters of public importance.
Why this matters
The institution of amicus curiae serves as a vital safeguard against miscarriages of justice, particularly in cases where one party is unrepresented or the issues transcend the interests of the parties before the court. In the Indian context, where access to quality legal representation remains uneven, amici curiae ensure that the court receives balanced and competent assistance on complex legal questions.
For criminal law practitioners, the Anokhilal guidelines are especially significant. In cases involving death sentences or life imprisonment, the appointment of a qualified amicus curiae with adequate preparation time is now a procedural requirement. Failure to comply with these guidelines can be a ground for setting aside a conviction, as the Court held that the right to effective legal representation is a component of the right to a fair trial under Article 21.
An important distinction to understand is that an amicus curiae is not a representative of any party. Unlike a counsel engaged by a litigant, the amicus curiae owes a duty to the court, not to any party. The amicus is expected to present an impartial and independent view of the law and facts, assisting the court in arriving at a just decision. In practice, when appointed in criminal appeals to assist an unrepresented accused, the amicus curiae effectively functions as defence counsel, but the formal obligation remains to the court. The Supreme Court has fixed the fees payable to an amicus curiae: six thousand rupees at the admission stage and ten thousand rupees at the final hearing stage.
Related terms
Broader concepts:
Related concepts:
Frequently asked questions
Who can be appointed as an amicus curiae in India?
Any advocate can be appointed as an amicus curiae by the court. However, the Supreme Court's guidelines in Anokhilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2019) require that in cases involving a potential life sentence or death sentence, the amicus must have at least 10 years' experience at the Bar. For High Court cases confirming death sentences, Senior Advocates must be considered first.
Does an amicus curiae represent a party?
No. An amicus curiae does not represent any party to the litigation. The amicus owes a duty to the court, not to any party, and is expected to present an independent and impartial view of the law and facts. However, when appointed to assist an unrepresented accused in a criminal appeal, the amicus effectively functions in a defence capacity while remaining formally accountable to the court.
How much does an amicus curiae get paid?
The Supreme Court has fixed the remuneration for amici curiae at six thousand rupees at the admission or hearing stage and ten thousand rupees at the final disposal or regular hearing stage. High Courts may prescribe their own fee schedules. The amount is paid from court funds, not by any party.
Can the court appoint an amicus curiae on its own?
Yes. Courts can appoint amici curiae suo motu (on their own motion), particularly in public interest litigation, cases involving complex constitutional questions, or criminal proceedings where the accused is unrepresented. The appointment is a matter of judicial discretion and does not require an application from any party.
This entry is part of the Veritect Indian Legal Glossary, a comprehensive reference of Indian legal terminology grounded in statutory text and judicial interpretation.
Last updated: 2026-03-27. Veritect provides this content for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.