Access To Justice Can Never Be Denied To Litigants Based Upon Their Economic Capacity: Emphasizes Bombay HC
|While observing that litigants should not get the impression that quality legal services are not provided to them merely because they are not able to afford the services of Advocates by paying substantial fees, the Bombay High Court recently said that access to justice can never be denied to the litigant based upon their economic capacity.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice M.S Sonak observed that "The litigants should not get the impression that quality legal services are not provided to them merely because they are not in a position to afford the services of Advocates by paying substantial fees. Access to justice can never be denied to the litigant based upon their economic capacity. Therefore greater responsibility is placed on those who appear under the legal aid scheme."
The observation came in reference to an appeal challenging the orders passed by the Court of Adhoc District Judge, whereby the regular civil appeal filed by the Appellant was dismissed for default due to non-appearance of the Appellant and the Advocate provided to him under the Legal Aid Scheme.
Advocate Swati Kamat Wagh appeared for the Appellant, whereas, Advocate Varun Bhandankar appeared for the Respondent.
After considering the submissions, the High Court found that when the appeal was dismissed for default, neither the Appellant nor his Advocate under the Legal Aid Scheme was present.
The High Court further noted that in the application for setting aside ex-parte order and readmission of the appeal, the Appellant stated that due to some personal hard-pressed difficulties, he could not remain present in the Court on the said date.
The Bench, therefore, found that the Appellant and his Advocate under the Legal Aid Scheme were not quite diligent in pursuing the appeal.
“Further, Advocates appointed under the Legal Aid Scheme, or others, should not unnecessarily involve themselves in making allegations of bias against the Presiding Officers unless the situation clearly warrants it and the facts support such a course” added the Bench.
The High Court also clarified that it is not proper for any lawyer, much less the lawyer appointed under the Legal Aid Scheme to avoid appearing before a particular Presiding Officer or keep seeking adjournments based upon some fanciful notion entertained by the litigant about the bias of the Presiding Officer.
However, since the Appellant had tendered an apology and had provided an explanation for non-appearance, the High Court directed the Appellant to deposit Rs. Ten thousand either directly to the Respondent or before the Appeal Court, and asked the Appeal Court to dispose of the regular civil appeal as expeditiously as possible.
Cause Title: Pravin Naik v. Shrinivas Prabhu Dessai