Trial Courts "shall record the offer made to the accused" of their right to legal representation, their entitlement to be represented by legal aid counsel if they cannot afford counsel

Patna High Court's Registrar General issued a circular order no. 01/2026 dated April 15, 2026 on the subject of 5-page long order dated February 5, 2026 passed by the Supreme Court's Division Bench Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran in Reginamary Chellamani vs. State Rep by Superintendent of Customs) SLP (Crl.) No. 18886/2025. 

The Court observed as follows: "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. 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. This procedure requires to be adopted and put in practice scrupulously. This order shall be communicated to the Chief Justices of all the High Courts to enable suitable instructions being issued in this regard to all the concerned trial Courts within the State." The case arose from the order dated July 24, 2025 by Justice M. Nirmal Kumar of Madras High Court. 

The circular reads: "In order to ensure uniform compliance with the directions of the Supreme Court, the following instructions, the High Court has issued for strict adherence by all criminal courts in the State: 
1. Informing the Accused of Right to Counsel: Before the commencement of examination of witnesses, the trial court shall inform the accused clearly and specifically that: 

(a) He/ She has a right to be represented by an advocate of his/ her choice, and
(b) If the accused cannot afford to engage a private counsel, he/she is entitled to free legal aid through Legal Services Authorities.
2. Offer of Legal Aid: Where the accused states that he/ she does not have legal representation or is unable to engage counsel, the court shall:
(a) Inform the accused of the availability of free legal aid, and
(b) Take necessary steps to provide legal aid counsel through the concerned District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) without delay.
3. Recording in Order Sheet: (i) The Presiding Officer shall specifically record in the order sheet:
(a) That the offer of legal representation/ legal aid was made to the accused.
(b) The response of the accused to such offer.
(c) The action taken by the court in consequence of such response.
(ii) The learned Trial Court, while recording the offer to provide legal representation to the accused shall also take the signature/ LTI of the accused in the margin of the order-sheet.
4. Condition Precedent for Witness Examination: The examination of prosecution witnesses shall not ordinarily commence unless:
(a) The above procedure has been followed, and
(b) The same has been duly recorded in the order sheet.
5. Strict Compliance: All trial courts shall scrupulously follow the above procedure in every criminal trial to safeguard the right to fair trial and effective legal representation. 

The Principal District and Sessions Judges shall circulate these instructions to all criminal courts under their jurisdiction, and ensure strict compliance with directions contained herein."

Notably, the appellant, Reginamary Chellamani, was aggrieved by the denial of regular bail by the Madras High Court in relation to the order of the Principal Special Judge under EC and NDPS Act Cases for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 22(c), 23, 28 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 read with Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. Supreme Court had observed:"We, however, find that the appellant, Reginamary Chellamani, has been in custody for 4 years 1 month and 28 days as on date. Given the length of incarceration that the appellant has already suffered and as an identically situated accused person, who was travelling along with the appellant, Reginamary Chellamani, on the same flight, has been granted bail by this Court, we are inclined to grant the same relief to the appellant at this stage. The appeal is accordingly allowed, setting aside the impugned order dated 24.07.2025. The appellant, Reginamary Chellamani, is directed to be released on bail in connection with the aforestated NDPS case, on stringent terms and conditions to be fixed by the trial Court."

The Supreme Court's order reads: "We may also note at this stage that the appellant did not cross examine the witnesses at the initial stage and it was only after she engaged her own counsel and her application for re-examining those witnesses was allowed that she was permitted to do so."