“Legal Aid To Poor Should Not Be Poor Legal Aid”- Supreme Court Issues Directions For Access To Legal Aid Services
|The Supreme Court has issued directions for access to legal aid services and remarked that, legal aid to poor should not be poor legal aid.
The Court was dealing with a writ petition filed primarily for issuance of direction to the Centre, States, and Union Territories to ensure that no prisoner is subjected to torture, cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment or punishment because of living in overcrowded and unhygienic conditions in jail.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan observed, “NALSA has stated that regular interaction is on with the convicts who have not preferred the appeals and they have been informed of the availability of free legal aid and the convicts falling in the categories (i), (x), (xi) are regularly interacting with the JVLs about their rights. The DLSAs are also conducting monthly inspections of the PLACs. Periodical reports of the DLSAs are to be submitted to the SLSAs, and the SLSAs are periodically sending reports to NALSA. The concern of Mr. Vijay Hansaria, learned Amicus Curie, is duly addressed by NALSA. … AS WAS SAID:- “LEGAL AID TO POOR SHOULD NOT BE POOR LEGAL AID.”
Senior Advocates (Amicus Curiae) Vijay Hansaria and K. Parameshwar appeared for the petitioner while Advocate Rashmi Nandakumar appeared for the respondents.
Factual Background -
The writ petition espoused the cause that all persons deprived of their liberty are entitled to be treated with humanity, and with respect for the inherent dignity and a prayer was made for creating a permanent mechanism to decongest the overcrowded prisons. Earlier in May 2024, broadly two issues were identified in the Court’s order - one pertaining to Open Correctional Institutions and the other with regard to modalities for visitation by lawyers in jail so as to ensure free legal aid to the deserving prison inmates. When the matter was taken in September 2024, a detailed note was placed on record by the counsel for the respondents on the aspect of access to free legal aid for the deserving prison inmates.
The Supreme Court in the above context of the case, said, “This Court has held that free legal assistance for poor and indigent at the cost of the State is a fundamental right of a person under Article 21 even if the person does not seek legal assistance on his own.”
The Court, therefore, issued the following directions –
• The Legal Services Authorities (LSAs) at different levels will continue to work with the same momentum to achieve the constitutional objectives and objectives of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
• NALSA (National Legal Services Authority) in cooperation with the SLSAs (State Legal Services Authorities) and the DLSAs (District Legal Services Authorities) will ensure that the SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) on Access to Legal Aid Services to prisoners and functioning of PLACs (Prison Legal Aid Clinics) are operated efficiently in practice.
• The LSAs at different levels will adopt methods to strengthen the monitoring of PLACs and to review their functioning periodically.
• The LSAs will periodically update the statistical data and after analysing the results, take steps to address the shortcomings that may come to light.
• The LSAs at all levels, should ensure that the Legal Aid Defence Counsel System, which is a pioneering measure, functions to its full potential. In this regard, periodic inspection and audit of the work of the Legal Aid Defence Counsels should be carried out.
• For the success of the functioning of the legal aid mechanism, awareness is the key and hence, a robust mechanism should be put in place and periodically updated to ensure that the various beneficial schemes promoted by the LSAs reaches the nook and corner of the nation and particularly, to those whose grievances it has set out to address. Adequate literature including in the local languages in the States and appropriate promotional methods should be launched so that the consumers of justice to whom the schemes are intended can make best use of the same.
• Measures to create awareness could be undertaken through the length and breadth of the nation to spread the message of the availability of legal aid.
• The LSAs will periodically review and update SOP-2022 for the Undertrial Review Committee [UTRC].
• The huge gap between total number of persons identified by the UTRC and the number of persons recommended for release should be looked into and adequate corrective measures be taken.
• The “Early Access to Justice at Pre-arrest, Arrest and Remand Stage Framework” established by NALSA for pre-litigation assistance should be diligently pursued and the work undertaken under the framework be periodically reviewed.
• Interaction by the LSAs at different levels with convicts who had not preferred appeals should be periodically undertaken and the convicts be informed of their right to free legal aid.
• Periodic interaction should be held with Jail Visiting Lawyers (JVLs) and Para Legal Volunteers (PLVs) to ensure updation of their knowledge so that the system functions efficiently as a whole.
• Steps for continuing education of lawyers involved in pre-litigation assistance and those associated with the Legal Aid Defence Counsel set-up should be provided by LSAs.
• Periodic reports should be submitted by the DLSAs to the SLSAs and the SLSAs to the NALSA, if not already done. NALSA should digitise the whole process whereby at the central level NALSA can, on the click of a button, get details of the updates done by SLSAs and DLSAs on regular basis.
• The Union of India and the State Governments shall continue to extend their cooperation and assistance to the LSAs at different levels for the effective implementation of the measures taken by them.
Accordingly, the Apex Court disposed of the petition and directed the Registry to forward a copy of its judgment to all the High Courts in the country.
Cause Title- Suhas Chakma v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 813)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocates (Amicus Curiae) Vijay Hansaria, K. Parameshwar, AORs Anuj Kapoor, Satish Pandey, Advocates Kavya Jhawar, Nandini Rai, Kanti, Raji Gururaj, Shreenivas Patil, and Chitransha Singh Sikarwar.
Respondents: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Senior Advocate Nalin Kohli, ASGs Suryaprakash V Raju, Aishwarya Bhati, DAG Praneet Pranav, Senior AAG Garima Prasad, AAGs Shiv Mangal Sharma, Hemant Gupta, and Advocate Rashmi Nandakumar.