By Ritesh Thusu & Twinky Rampal
“To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or Justice.” — King John
Providing equal justice under the law is one of India’s widely declared principles albeit one of the most widely contravened principles, too. Promotion of justice through equal opportunity and providing free legal aid is embodied in the Constitution of India. The International Bill of Rights also declares that Right to Legal Assistance by the needy is a Human Right. Coveting swift and affordable justice is a legitimate expectation on the part of the needy litigant. The Law Commission of India has stoutly advocated the call for rendering legal aid to underprivileged litigants and held that ‘the rendering of legal aid to the poor litigants is not a minor problem of procedural law but a question of fundamental character’. Bharucha, J. is of the view that many people of this country who can’t afford the luxury of hiring a lawyer depend on free legal aid to fetch them justice. Thus, adequate provisions to provide impetus to the growing demand of legal aid needed to be made.
The constitution of the Committee for the Implementation of Legal Aid Schemes (CILAS) in 1980 was a major step in institutionalising legal aid. In furtherance of this motive, the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 was enacted. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in tandem with its Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee, enumerates that any person desirous of availing legal service, has to apply to the Committee, which shall after considering the case of every person, provide necessary legal aid.
Despite the commendable efforts of the authorities, the real story is rather different. The budget for legal services is a meagre Rs.3 Crores a year for all States and Union Territories and their legal services committees in the country. It is an irony that in a country, where nyaya originated alongside dharma, there is a dearth of legal assistance to the poor. Our justice dispensing system reflects a gaping chasm between rhetoric commitments and reality. The Supreme Court of United States of America has corroborated the Indian situation by quoting, “(t)here can be no equal Justice where the kind of trial a man gets depends on the amount of money he has.”
Furthermore, a survey of Private Members’ Constitutional Amendment Bills from 1971-85 showed that 403 bills were moved by Private members in the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha but none took care of the justice to social priority. Law schools, Bar Associations, legal educators, mentors and every possible legal resource must harmonize for resolution of disputes and delivery of legal services as required by the poor.
As a much sensitizing and economical change, there should be maximization of individual opportunities to address law related problems themselves and without expensive representation by attorneys. The aim should be simplification of the law for the needy to understand it better. Readily accessible self-help material and document preparation assistance must be provided to the poor.
Another survey was carried out to ascertain the societal reaction towards legal aid, the results of which were: (i) Free legal aid should not be available to dangerous criminals, and (ii) The resources and finances allotted for the purpose of legal aid should reach the indigents and not the intermediaries.
Dr. A.M. Singhvi optimistically pointed that to remove the backlog of cases in the country the best approach is that of less talk and more action. That is precisely what the need of the hour is in Indian justice dispensation system to supplement the legal aid mechanism. Providing legal advice to the deprived to make them aware of their constitutional and legal rights and obligations should rather be construed as the State’s constitutional obligation in most practical of senses. Equal access to justice may be an unattainable ideal, but adequate legal assistance must be provided to those who are willing to wage their own legal battles.
It is noteworthy that legal aid aspirants basically suffer due to manpower shortage, infrastructural constraints, and procedural delays. Steps to curb these inefficiencies must be taken at the earliest. It is well known that the lawyers usually don’t have any motivation to take up cases for fewer fees. There should be steps taken to alter the payment schedule for legal aid panel advocates. Compressed Panels would lead to better performance due to quality output, bestowed with the benefit of better rewards. There should be compressed panels so that panel advocates get more work and better remuneration and thus get encouraged to render efficient legal assistance. Fast Track Courts are the implicit substitutes needed to emancipate the snailing pace of justice. Similar schemes in each State/Territory may be a great judicial asset.
Courts can be transferred to Fast Track Courts of Magistrates for quick disposal. Modernization of courts by using information technology and computerization of the whole system is another alternative to ensure speedy justice and efficient machinery. Yearly Budgetary allocation to state governments to aid in the development of various legal education programmes, awareness campaigns and case follow-up mechanisms should be a State priority. And finally, a citizen’s hand in the form of involvement of social activists and NGO’s may well abet in the unshackling of justice through legal aid mechanism.
There has been a shift away from the beneficiary of legal services to the institution dispensing legal services. With a view to make this a reality, for those largely depressed and deprived, downtrodden and destitute, dejected and rejected, forlorn and forgotten, lowly and lost, legal service has to be a remedy, as provided in the Constitution. Lastly, we would like to conclude by saying that instead of concentrating our time and energies on campaigns such as Imagine The India That Could Be, we should rather concentrate on the India That Actually Exists!! The problems of our legal aid system are awesome but not insurmountable. The history shall never criticize those who tried and failed but shall be at its harshest against those who failed to try.
Author’s note printed with the article: The authors, solely, are responsible and answerable for the views presented in the article below. This is their personal analysis and any sort of omission or overlooking of facts or law points is deeply regretted. The authors acknowledge that a few excerpts of the article can be attributed to already printed material.