Amicus curiae could be a way out to conduct Ajmal's trial

MUMBAI: The deadlock over appointment of a lawyer for Mohammad Ajmal Amir Iman, the lone surviving terrorist of November 26 attacks here, could be solved by appointment of amicus curiae, going by the Bombay High Court's recent judgment.

So far, Ajmal has no lawyer of his own. The one appointed by the Magistrate's court - advocate Dinesh Mota - refused take up his brief.

Ajmal has sought legal aid from Pakistan High Commission but to no avail. The Supreme Court, in earlier cases, has held that if an accused goes undefended, the trial has to be set aside.

"In such a situation, Amicus Curiae could be a solution," chief public prosecutor of the Bombay High Court Satish Borulkar revealed.

In fact, in one of the cases where advocate Borulkar appeared for the state, the Bombay High Court has said that if the accused did not engage a lawyer, it is trial court's duty to appoint an amicus curiae.

Amicus curiae, which is a Latin term, literally means `friend of the court'. He/she who does not represent any of the sides but assists the court.

Earlier this year, a murder case in which two women have been convicted and sentenced to death landed up in the High Court for confirmation of the death sentences.

Leena Deosthali and her daughter Deepti Deosthali were accused of abducting and killing one Dr Deepak Mahajan in July 2006. When the trial began in Pune seesions court, the accused wished to conduct their defence themselves.