Posts
Source: DNA dated 02.01.2018
It can be called a fine piece of judicial activism at the start of a New Year, one that was long overdue. An in-house study conducted by the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee (SCLSC), has concluded that poor litigants on the death row or those facing harsh punishments are not getting quality legal aid. In two recent judgments in December last month, the apex court, while commuting two capital punishments to life terms, took note of the poor socio-economic conditions of the two convicts. That the law is tilted heavily in favour of the rich, would be to state the obvious. The court, taking cognisance of this truism, quoted from the SCLSC report, which pointed out to “enormous delays in attending to cases of the poor and the needy.” Therefore, it makes 2019 a good year for such litigants, who need legal assistance, not just because they are poor, but also because they are not educated enough to know the pros and cons of their case. Quite correctly, the court observed that quality legal aid to the disadvantaged and weaker sections of society is an area that requires great and urgent attention. It needs no rocket science to know that the cost of litigation has been rising in India and as such, justice remains inaccessible for the underprivileged who are in no position to approach the courts. The National Legal Services Authority or NALSA was set up in 1987 precisely for this purpose, of providing free legal services to the weaker sections. Successive law ministers have flagged concerns about the high cost of litigation. Equally well known is the fact that leading advocates in the Supreme Court, high courts and district courts charge such exorbitant fees that it is beyond the reach of the underclass litigants. It makes the situation even more pronounced when a poor litigant is pitted against a rich opponent. It has generally been observed that in such cases, the result of the adjudication has gone against the lesser privileged litigant. The problem persists because big lawyers - many of them money spinning machines - rarely, if ever, offer their services for such voluntary work. On occasions when they do, their performances are not as professional as when they charge their fat fees to appear in cases. The tragedy is that despite such awareness about the plight of poor litigants, not much has been done in this direction, apart from setting up the NALSA that has done commendable work, but falls far short of what is needed given the enormity of the problem. To that extent, the latest Supreme Court initiative needs to be applauded. Statistics compiled by the National Law University, Delhi, in its Death Penalty India Report based on interviews with 373 death row prisoners across the country, found that three-fourths of prisoners were economically vulnerable, with most of them being the sole or primary earners in their families. Even though Article 39 A of the Constitution promises free legal aid, its practical implications have proved to be something else.
It can be called a fine piece of judicial activism at the start of a New Year, one that was long overdue. An in-house study conducted by the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee (SCLSC), has concluded that poor litigants on the death row or those facing harsh punishments are not getting quality legal aid. In two recent judgments in December last month, the apex court, while commuting two capital punishments to life terms, took note of the poor socio-economic conditions of the two convicts. That the law is tilted heavily in favour of the rich, would be to state the obvious. The court, taking cognisance of this truism, quoted from the SCLSC report, which pointed out to “enormous delays in attending to cases of the poor and the needy.” Therefore, it makes 2019 a good year for such litigants, who need legal assistance, not just because they are poor, but also because they are not educated enough to know the pros and cons of their case. Quite correctly, the court observed that quality legal aid to the disadvantaged and weaker sections of society is an area that requires great and urgent attention. It needs no rocket science to know that the cost of litigation has been rising in India and as such, justice remains inaccessible for the underprivileged who are in no position to approach the courts. The National Legal Services Authority or NALSA was set up in 1987 precisely for this purpose, of providing free legal services to the weaker sections. Successive law ministers have flagged concerns about the high cost of litigation. Equally well known is the fact that leading advocates in the Supreme Court, high courts and district courts charge such exorbitant fees that it is beyond the reach of the underclass litigants. It makes the situation even more pronounced when a poor litigant is pitted against a rich opponent. It has generally been observed that in such cases, the result of the adjudication has gone against the lesser privileged litigant. The problem persists because big lawyers - many of them money spinning machines - rarely, if ever, offer their services for such voluntary work. On occasions when they do, their performances are not as professional as when they charge their fat fees to appear in cases. The tragedy is that despite such awareness about the plight of poor litigants, not much has been done in this direction, apart from setting up the NALSA that has done commendable work, but falls far short of what is needed given the enormity of the problem. To that extent, the latest Supreme Court initiative needs to be applauded. Statistics compiled by the National Law University, Delhi, in its Death Penalty India Report based on interviews with 373 death row prisoners across the country, found that three-fourths of prisoners were economically vulnerable, with most of them being the sole or primary earners in their families. Even though Article 39 A of the Constitution promises free legal aid, its practical implications have proved to be something else.
