by Justice Pritam Pal
THE Supreme Court has reminded us several times through landmark judgements that speedy trail and free legal aid to the needy are fundamental rights of an accused who cannot be subject to hardship by delay in proceedings. Most liberal democracies consider it necessary to provide legal aid to those unable to afford legal representation. Failure to do so would deprive them of access to the court system.
This would also violate the principles of equality before the law and due process under the rule of law. The concept, however, finds its traces in Rig Veda and the social system of ancient India having operated along the principles of “Dharma”.
The Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987, is aimed at ensuring equal opportunities for procuring justice irrespective of the weak or economic conditions and social deprivation of the litigants. The committee for implementing legal aid schemes is actively working to catalyse the efforts of the state schemes or statues, and to bring about the desirable uniformity in their programmes and provisions.
Legal aid implies giving free legal services to those who cannot engage a lawyer in any court, tribunal or authority. It is the state’s duty to ensure that the legal system promotes justice on the basis of equal opportunity for all its citizens. It must, therefore, arrange to provide free legal paid to those who cannot access justice due to economic and other disabilities.
Article 39A of the Constitution states that if the accused does not have sufficient means to engage a lawyer, the court must provide one for the defense of the accused at the state’s expense. Section 304 of the Criminal Procedure Code casts the constitutional duty to provide legal aid arises from the time the accused is produced before the magistrate for the first time and continues whenever he is produced for remand.
In Suk Das vs Union Terrotory of Arunachal Pradesh (1986) 2 SCC 401, the Supreme Court held that the police must inform the nearest Legal Aid Committee about a person’s arrest. The magistrates and sessions judges must inform every accused who appears before them and who is not represented by a lawyer on account of his poverty that he is entitled to free legal services at the state’s cost. Failure to provide legal aid to an indigent accused, unless it was refused, would vitiate the trial. It might even result in setting aside a conviction and sentence.
The trial should not be delayed so much as to cause grievance to the victim and add to his agony. The right to speedy trial has been implicitly read in Article 21. The Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon’s case held that any accused who has been denied this right, the state is under a constitutional mandate to take all necessary measures for securing this right to the accused.
Thus, the letter of law recognises the right of an accused to speedy trial, but the problem is how to make it a reality. The test of a good law is that it must be able to achieve its goals, that is, the dispensation of justice to the individual and society.
The apex court has decried administrative and judicial indolence in several of its decisions. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer once remarked in a judgement: “Our justice system, even in grave cases, suffers from a low motion syndrome which is lethal to “fair trial” whatever the ultimate decision. Speedy justice is a component of social justice since the community, as a whole, is concerned in the criminal being condignly and finally punished within a reasonable time and the innocent being absolved from the inordinate ordeal of criminal proceedings”.
The Supreme Court ruled that to put a man in prison and forget his personhood thereafter, to deprive a man of his personal liberty for an arbitrary period without monitoring by law, to keep a man in continued custody unmindful of just, fair and reasonable procedure would shake in the rule of law and is totally against the mandates of Part III of the Constitution. The trial should be disposed of expeditiously for which the government has taken adequate steps.
Lok Adalats are result of one such initiative. Its objective, as enunciated in the statute, is to promote “a compromise or settlement between the parties” and deliver justice with “utmost expedition” treading on the path of legal principles and the principles of justice, equality and fair play.
These are judicial bodies set up for the purpose of facilitating peaceful resolution of disputes between the litigating parties. They have the powers of an ordinary civil court, like summoning, examining evidence etc. Its orders are like those by the court, but the parties cannot appeal against them.
Lok Adalats can resolve all matters except criminal cases that are non-compoundable. Either one or both parties to litigation can make an application to the court for transferring the case to a Lok Adalat. Where no compromise or settlement is made, the case is transferred to the court which deals with the litigation from the stage the Lok Adalat had reached.
The Legal Services Authorities Act makes an effort for a countrywide legal aid movement. It broadens the ambit and umbrella of legal aid and seeks to encourage community participation in the legal aid services. This establishment is a signal to a bright future and a giant step forward in the march towards the rule of law.
This would also violate the principles of equality before the law and due process under the rule of law. The concept, however, finds its traces in Rig Veda and the social system of ancient India having operated along the principles of “Dharma”.
The Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987, is aimed at ensuring equal opportunities for procuring justice irrespective of the weak or economic conditions and social deprivation of the litigants. The committee for implementing legal aid schemes is actively working to catalyse the efforts of the state schemes or statues, and to bring about the desirable uniformity in their programmes and provisions.
Legal aid implies giving free legal services to those who cannot engage a lawyer in any court, tribunal or authority. It is the state’s duty to ensure that the legal system promotes justice on the basis of equal opportunity for all its citizens. It must, therefore, arrange to provide free legal paid to those who cannot access justice due to economic and other disabilities.
Article 39A of the Constitution states that if the accused does not have sufficient means to engage a lawyer, the court must provide one for the defense of the accused at the state’s expense. Section 304 of the Criminal Procedure Code casts the constitutional duty to provide legal aid arises from the time the accused is produced before the magistrate for the first time and continues whenever he is produced for remand.
In Suk Das vs Union Terrotory of Arunachal Pradesh (1986) 2 SCC 401, the Supreme Court held that the police must inform the nearest Legal Aid Committee about a person’s arrest. The magistrates and sessions judges must inform every accused who appears before them and who is not represented by a lawyer on account of his poverty that he is entitled to free legal services at the state’s cost. Failure to provide legal aid to an indigent accused, unless it was refused, would vitiate the trial. It might even result in setting aside a conviction and sentence.
The trial should not be delayed so much as to cause grievance to the victim and add to his agony. The right to speedy trial has been implicitly read in Article 21. The Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon’s case held that any accused who has been denied this right, the state is under a constitutional mandate to take all necessary measures for securing this right to the accused.
Thus, the letter of law recognises the right of an accused to speedy trial, but the problem is how to make it a reality. The test of a good law is that it must be able to achieve its goals, that is, the dispensation of justice to the individual and society.
The apex court has decried administrative and judicial indolence in several of its decisions. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer once remarked in a judgement: “Our justice system, even in grave cases, suffers from a low motion syndrome which is lethal to “fair trial” whatever the ultimate decision. Speedy justice is a component of social justice since the community, as a whole, is concerned in the criminal being condignly and finally punished within a reasonable time and the innocent being absolved from the inordinate ordeal of criminal proceedings”.
The Supreme Court ruled that to put a man in prison and forget his personhood thereafter, to deprive a man of his personal liberty for an arbitrary period without monitoring by law, to keep a man in continued custody unmindful of just, fair and reasonable procedure would shake in the rule of law and is totally against the mandates of Part III of the Constitution. The trial should be disposed of expeditiously for which the government has taken adequate steps.
Lok Adalats are result of one such initiative. Its objective, as enunciated in the statute, is to promote “a compromise or settlement between the parties” and deliver justice with “utmost expedition” treading on the path of legal principles and the principles of justice, equality and fair play.
These are judicial bodies set up for the purpose of facilitating peaceful resolution of disputes between the litigating parties. They have the powers of an ordinary civil court, like summoning, examining evidence etc. Its orders are like those by the court, but the parties cannot appeal against them.
Lok Adalats can resolve all matters except criminal cases that are non-compoundable. Either one or both parties to litigation can make an application to the court for transferring the case to a Lok Adalat. Where no compromise or settlement is made, the case is transferred to the court which deals with the litigation from the stage the Lok Adalat had reached.
The Legal Services Authorities Act makes an effort for a countrywide legal aid movement. It broadens the ambit and umbrella of legal aid and seeks to encourage community participation in the legal aid services. This establishment is a signal to a bright future and a giant step forward in the march towards the rule of law.
The writer is Judge, Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh
For any query:- legalbuddy@gmail.com , legalpoint@aol.in
2 comments:
For legal aid and speedy justice its very important that the Law authorities should amend such kind of rules and regulation which require less of legal formalities and provide strait forward decisions.
Orange County Bail Bonds
Nice post. Its good to read blogs like this and gain some knowledge about the legal services. Its very useful for all thanks for the post.
Post a Comment