In this Order from the 3-Judge bench of Supreme Court, it was held that, if the advocate provided by District Court Legal Aid Authority is absent from the proceedings, High Court ought to have appointed an Amicus to take up the case forward.

From Para 7,

7 The High Court, in our view, was manifestly in error in rejecting the revision in default, on the ground that the appellant’s advocate had remained absent on the previous four occasions. Since the revision before the High Court arose out of an order of the conviction under the Arms Act, the High Court ought to have appointed an Amicus Curiae in the absence of counsel, who has been engaged by the Legal Services Authority, Rohtak. The liberty of a citizen cannot be taken away in this manner.

Here is the SLP: