Supreme Court Declares Right to Appeal Conviction as Constitutional, Not Just Statutory

Introduction

In a landmark judgment delivered on June 9, 2025, the Supreme Court of India in Nagarajan v. State of Tamil Nadu reaffirmed that the right to appeal a criminal conviction transcends statutory grant—it is rooted in the Constitution itself. This decision strengthens the foundational principle that every accused has the inherent right to challenge a conviction, underpinning the right with Article 21, which guarantees protection of life and personal liberty.

Background of the Case

In Nagarajan, the accused appealed against his conviction and sentence. The Madras High Court raised the sentence sua sponte and modified it into a lesser punishment. However, this order neglected to address the convict’s right to appeal against the changed conviction and sentence. Consequently, the case reached the Supreme Court, raising a critical legal question: Does the right to file an appeal against conviction owe its existence purely to statute, or does it also emerge from the Constitution?

Statutory vs. Constitutional Rights

The right of appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is undeniably statutory in nature. However, the Supreme Court clarified that while this right is indeed conferred by statute, its ripeness is Constitutional. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution has been expansively interpreted to encompass all procedural safeguards that protect an accused’s liberty—including the appeal process.

The Court observed that criminal convictions affect the most fundamental personal liberty interests. Therefore, any legal framework that provides a mechanism for redressing miscarriage of justice reflects not just a legislative privilege but constitutional fairness. Even when statutes empower courts to modify sentences, the convict's opportunity to contest such modifications cannot be denied.

The Court’s Reasoning

The Supreme Court’s key observations include:

1. Appeal as a Constitutional Necessity: Echoing earlier decisions, the Court underscored that any judicial order affecting liberty must allow for constitutional remedies. Appeals serve as critical checks on judicial error, and their denial would violate the principle of natural justice.

   
   

2. Substantive Versus Procedural Rights: The judgment emphasized the distinction between the source and substance of rights. Although Section 374 CrPC grants the right to appeal, whether the right exists derives from constitutional imperatives. Statutory rights must not be exercised in a vacuum—they rest upon Article 21's guarantee of fair procedure.

   
   

3. High Court’s Powers and Accused’s Rights: Even when a High Court has the power to amend a convict’s sentence suo motu, this power must be exercised without trampling on the convict’s right to defend the modified order. Cura non cessat—the principle that rights do not vanish even if procedure shifts.

   
   

Implications for Criminal Justice

Preservation of Fairness and Due Process

This judgment reaffirms that fairness is not a luxury—it’s embedded in the Constitution. Accused persons must be given notice and opportunity to be heard, even when a court initiates changes to convictions or sentences. Due process is the heartbeat of Article 21—and procedural safeguards are indispensable to maintain legal legitimacy.

Higher Courts Cannot Sidestep Appellate Rights

The Supreme Court has made clear that higher courts wielding revisionary powers cannot unilaterally impose sentence changes without guarantying appellate safeguards. Any such deviation heightens the risk of injustice and violates the accused’s fundamental rights.

Reinforcing Constitutional Substratum of Statutory Safeguards

By grounding the right to appeal in Article 21, the Court elevates Section 374 CrPC from legislative protection to constitutional guarantee. This makes any dilution or subversion of appellate rights far more difficult—laws or practices that impede appeals may now be seen as unconstitutional.

Comparative Context: Freedom of Appeal in Common Law

In international jurisprudence, appellate safeguards have been recognized as essential to justice:

• In the United States, the Supreme Court in Griffin v. Illinois (1956) reinforced that appeal procedures cannot discriminate based on economic status. Although appeal rights are statutory, they must align with due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

  
  

• In India, cases like Dilip Dahanukar v. Kotak and Rajendra v. State of Rajasthan have already acknowledged that delay-based denial of appeal is impermissible without contextual examination. The current judgment extends this logic, confirming the constitutional pedigree of appeal rights even when procedural technicalities are challenged.

  
  

Thus, the confluence of global legal principles and India’s constitutional ethos affirms that appeals are not luxury—they’re fundamental pillars of justice.

Impact on Legal Practice

Litigants Benefits

Accused persons and defense counsels can now assert that limitations or procedural barriers to appeal—such as untimely applications, incomplete notices, or modified sentences—must pass the constitutional test. Courts may no longer dismiss appeals on narrow technical grounds without satisfying constitutional scrutiny.

Judicial Reforms

Judiciary and procedural bodies must align practices to ensure accused persons are provided genuine appellate opportunities: clear notices, timelines, and the means to respond—even in cases of suo motu modifications.

Legislative Responsibility

Parliament may perceive this ruling as a watermark requiring alignment of statutes with constitutional standards. Procedural amendments, if made, will be evaluated for whether they enhance or obstruct an accused's liberty rights under Article 21.

Looking Ahead

A Shift Toward Empowered Appeal Rights

With this ruling, appeals begin a transformation—from statutory cursory recourse to constitutional safeguard. Defense strategies will likely adapt to ensure vigorous appellate advocacy from the outset, and courts will be cautious about proceeding without safeguards.

Signal for Future Constitutional Litigation

Articles 14 and 21 frequently underpin legal challenges to procedural safeguards. This judgment empowers litigants to approach courts when statutory appeal procedures are convoluted, dismissive, or counter to constitutional mandates.

Reinforcing Judicial Accountability

By placing the appellate process within the constitutional framework, the Supreme Court has sounded a clarion call for legal officers, courts, and legislative bodies: appellate integrity must be protected.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in Nagarajan (June 9, 2025) marks a pivotal moment in criminal procedure jurisprudence. By affirming that the right to appeal a criminal conviction is also a constitutional right, rooted in Article 21, the Court strengthens India’s commitment to due process and fairness. Statutory provisions like Section 374 CrPC offer structure—but their legitimacy derives from the Constitution. This jurisprudence ensures that no criminal order stands immune from higher review, preserving not just legal consistency, but individual liberty.

In doing so, the Court has crystallized a vital principle: where liberty is in jeopardy, procedural justice is not optional—it’s constitutional.