Full Judgment Text
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 773 OF 2020
BRIJESH KUMAR …PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, …RESPONDENT(S)
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
O R D E R
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J. :
On merits, we have heard the learned amicus curiae on the
matter and gone through the material on record. The Trial Court as
well as the High Court have gone into, in detail, and meticulously
examined material on record, and came to the conclusion that the
Petitioner be convicted. The Petitioner is a habitual offender. He is
involved in robbery, murder cases, etc. We have also gone through the
material on record and we do not find any ground to interfere in the
impugned judgments. Hence, the Special Leave Petition fails and is
Signature Not Verified
dismissed.
Digitally signed by
ASHWANI KUMAR
Date: 2021.04.13
12:25:15 IST
Reason:
2. However, before parting with the matter, we want to make certain
observations based on the submissions repeatedly made by the
2
learned advocate representing the Legal Services Authority both in
civil and criminal matters. Generally, reputed advocates are being
appointed as advocates for the Legal Services Authority or amicus
curiae . They feel handicapped as they are not making any grievance
against the Authority except the grievance that they are not provided
with necessary assistance to effectively represent the matter. In this
context, we want to make certain observations as under:
3. The right to legal representation sits at the core of not only the
right to life and liberty conferred by Article 21 of the Constitution, but
at the very foundation of the entirety of our justice system, be it civil
or criminal. For this right to be meaningful, it is imperative that it
does not make distinctions between the rich and the poor, the haves
and havenots. The right to legal representation, as necessitated by
the demands of justice and equity, must be unfazed by the economic
class or financial resources of the accused.
4. To this end was enacted the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987
(hereinafter, ‘1987 Act’), setting for itself the following object and
purpose:
“…to provide free and competent legal services to the
weaker sections of the society, to ensure that opportunities
for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason
of economic or other disabilities, and to organise Lok
Adalats to secure that the operation of the legal system
promotes justice on a basis of equal opportunity.”
3
5. Having secured for itself the above hallowed purpose, the Act has
created a nationwide network of Legal Services Authorities (at the
national, state, district, and taluk level) for framing policies for legal
aid and services, as well as a network of Legal Services Committees
(within the Supreme Court, the High Court, and the taluk level) for the
onground implementation of the legal services programme at various
levels.
6. In further recognition of the need to fill a dire gap in access to
justice for the poor, it has also become a wellsettled position that,
that where an accused comes before the Court without legal
representation, the Court is dutybound to either appoint an amicus
curiae or refer him to the appropriate Legal Services Committee who
shall then appoint an advocate to represent the accused ( Rakesh v.
State of Madhya Pradesh, (2011) 12 SCC 513; Shaik Mukthar &
v. (2020) SCC OnLine SC 1091).
anr. State of Andhra Pradesh,
7. The above developments mark significant leaps forward in
making justice accessible to each Indian citizen. However, the present
matter has brought to our notice a disconcerting trend in the workings
of legal aid institutions.
8. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner in this matter, Mr. Gagan
4
Gupta, was appointed as amicus curiae for the Petitioner herein, vide
letter from the Assistant Registrar, Supreme Court dated 3.12.2019.
Mr. Gupta has brought to our attention that in this, as well as other
matters he was appointed as amicus curiae , he was only provided with
the copies of the impugned judgment and the trial court judgment
preceding it, severely hampering effective representation. This, from
the frequent grievances raised by advocates appearing before us,
seems to be reflective of a general practice, particularly in criminal
matters.
9. This practice only serves to handicap those advocates who seek
to do a commendable service to our legal institutions by offering
themselves as legal aid lawyers and amicus curiae for the cause of
those otherwise unrepresented. In the absence of being provided with
the full record of a particular matter, the promise of “free and
competent legal services” made by the 1987 Act can only remain
unfulfilled for those in the greatest need for justice and representation.
The right to legal representation must, if it is to mean anything,
encapsulate the right to effective legal representation.
10. Thus, to ensure that the great progress we have made in
establishing legal aid institutions does not remain a paper tiger in the
struggle against unequal access to justice, we direct as follows:
5
a. The Secretary, National Legal Services Authority shall,
with immediate effect, instruct all concerned authorities
under the 1987 Act to make available all documents (along
with official translations) pertaining to a matter to the
concerned legal aid counsel/ amicus curiae.
b. The Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, and all the
High Court and Taluk Legal Services Committees are also
instructed to ensure that the legal aid counsel/ amicus
curiae is provided all relevant records of the matter (along
with official translations of any documents in vernacular
language).
c. By way of ample caution, we also clarify that these
documents would include, but are not limited to, pleadings,
affidavits, applications filed in civil proceedings; and the
First Information Report, Charge Sheet and annexed
documents including witness statements, record of the trial
proceedings, testimonies, and exhibits brought on record in
criminal proceedings.
11. It is our expectation that these directions will be complied with
immediately and the status quo changed for better and more effective
legal representation.
6
12. A copy of this order is directed to be served by the Registry of this
Court on the National Legal Services Authority and all the State Legal
Services Authorities for necessary action.
13. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
…..…………................................J.
(MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR)
…………………………………………J.
(AJAY RASTOGI)
NEW DELHI,
MARCH 22, 2021
7
ITEM NO.12 Court 9 (Video Conferencing) SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 773/2020
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 29-08-2018
in JA No. 3220/2011 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At
Allahabad)
BRIJESH KUMAR Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, …Respondent(s)
THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
(FOR ADMISSION and IA No.16713/2020-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. )
Date : 22-03-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Gagan Gupta, AOR
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The Special Leave Petition is dismissed in terms of the
reportable signed order.
Pending application(s), if any stands disposed of accordingly.
(ASHWANI KUMAR) (R.S. NARAYANAN)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed reportable order is placed on the file)