Summary
In a public interest writ petition on prison conditions, the Supreme Court dealt separately with access to free legal aid for prisoners. It reviewed NALSA's SOPs, the Legal Aid Defence Counsel System, the undertrial review committee and pre-arrest assistance frameworks and the data on convicts' appeals, commended the work done, and issued directions to strengthen monitoring, awareness and follow-up so that legal aid reaches prisoners, including a suggestion that courts append a cover sheet on free legal aid to judgments of conviction.
Issues
- What measures are needed to ensure effective access to free legal aid for prison inmates, including convicts who have not filed appeals and undertrial prisoners eligible for release.
- Whether the existing mechanisms of NALSA, SLSAs and DLSAs under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 called for further directions.
Provisions considered
- Article 39A, Constitution of IndiaQuoted as the constitutional goal of equal justice and free legal aid that the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 was enacted to implement. (¶¶ 5, 10, 21)
- Article 21, Constitution of IndiaRelying on earlier decisions, the Court restated that free legal assistance to the poor at State cost is part of a fair, just and reasonable procedure under Article 21 even if not sought, and that making a convict aware of the right of appeal and of free legal aid gives effect to it. (¶¶ 6, 7, 8, 19, 33)
- Sections 4, 12 and 13, Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987Section 4(a), (b), (c) and (i) set out NALSA's functions to lay down policies, frame schemes, allocate funds and monitor legal aid programmes; Section 12 entitles every person in custody to legal services, subject under Section 13 to a prima facie case. These were the basis for the SOPs reviewed. (¶ 10)
- Section 341, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023Quoted as requiring the Court to assign an advocate at State expense to an unrepresented accused without sufficient means in a trial or appeal; awareness of appellate rights and legal aid among convicts was said to bring this provision into full play. (¶ 19)
Held
- Free legal aid at State cost for indigent persons is a fundamental right under Article 21 that does not depend on the person asking for it; the court must inform an unrepresented accused of it, and legal aid must be effective and diligent rather than nominal. (¶¶ 6, 7, 8, 33)
- Informing convicts in custody of their right of appeal and of the availability of free legal services effectuates Article 21 and Section 341 of the BNSS for persons who are otherwise cut off from the outside world. (¶ 19)
- The Court recorded its satisfaction that NALSA, the SLSAs and DLSAs were working to realise Article 39A, but noted the gaps NALSA itself identified, including continued detention of persons eligible for statutory bail and the gap between undertrials identified, recommended for release and actually released, and directed that these be addressed. (¶¶ 21, 23, 26)
- Directions were issued for efficient operation and periodic updating of the NALSA SOP-2022 on prison legal aid clinics and of the UTRC SOP, stronger monitoring of the clinics, periodic review of statistics, audit and better service conditions in the Legal Aid Defence Counsel System, awareness campaigns in local languages (boards in public places, radio and television, street plays), periodic contact with convicts who had not appealed, training of jail visiting lawyers, paralegal volunteers and legal aid counsel, and digitised reporting from DLSAs to SLSAs to NALSA. (¶ 34)
- The High Courts were asked to consider a practice direction that copies of judgments of conviction, dismissal of appeals, reversal of acquittal or rejection of bail carry a cover sheet telling the convict about free legal aid for further remedies, with the contact details of the legal aid committee, and to give similar information in notices in appeals against acquittal and on their websites. (¶ 34)
Result
Writ petition disposed of, insofar as it concerned legal aid to prisoners, with directions to the Legal Services Authorities, the Union and the States; the Registry to send the judgment to all High Courts; NALSA given liberty to seek further directions. The issue of open correctional institutions was to be heard separately.