The Case of MH Hoskot vs State of Maharashtra (1978)

July 15, 2024

All Indian people are entitled to fundamental rights, which are enshrined in Part III of the Constitution. These rights apply to every person, irrespective of their age, gender, color, status, class, etc. Notwithstanding the assurance, those incarcerated in jails frequently experience the greatest violations of their fundamental rights, many of which go unreported as well.

A person’s status is not diminished from that of a person to that of a non-person just because they are incarcerated and found guilty of their crimes. Basic human rights are available to everyone, including those who are incarcerated. The topic is covered in detail in the seminal ruling of mh hoskot vs state of Maharashtra, which examines both the fundamental rights of prisoners and the requirement for free legal aid and support for those who are unable to pay for legal representation.

mh hoskot vs state of Maharashtra Case Facts

  • The petitioner, a 30-year-old PhD and MSc candidate, was found guilty of serious offenses under Sections 417, 467, 468, 471, and 511 of the Indian Penal Code after being accused of faking Karnataka University degree certificates.
  • The petitioner was sentenced to simple imprisonment and a fine by the trial court because he was from a middle-class household. Both the State and the petitioner filed appeals with the High Court; the State argued against simple incarceration for such serious offenses, while the petitioner opposed one-day imprisonment.
  • The petitioner’s appeal was denied by the High Court, who also granted the State’s request for an augmentation and imposed a three-year prison sentence.
  • After serving four years in prison, the petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court of India in 1974 through SLP. The petitioner did not receive a copy of the order from the High Court until 1978, which is the cause for the delay. The petitioner’s right to pursue justice was infringed.

mh hoskot vs state of Maharashtra Issues

  • Whether the current petition may be maintained in accordance with article 136 of the Indian constitution or not?
  • Whether the idea of free legal aid is covered by article 21 of the indian constitution or not?

Contentions by the Parties

Petitioner:

  • The petitioner’s competent attorney said that, in compliance with Sections 363(2) as well as 387 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner requested a copy of the High Court’s decision through the jail administrations on December 10, 1973. However, he never obtained a copy of the decision.
  • Furthermore, it was asserted that the petitioner had lost his ability to file a special leave petition to appeal and was therefore forced to file a plea for a pardon after receiving a second certified copy from the High Court.
  • The knowledgeable lawyer also drew attention to the petitioner’s signature not being in the register for obtaining a copy of the judgment. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner never received a copy of the ruling.

Respondent:

  • The informed lawyer for the respondent argued that the delay wasn’t his client’s fault.
  • The argument states that although a clerk did give a copy of the High Court’s ruling,
  • Subsequently returned it since it was missing a government plea for mercy requesting a sentence reduction.
  • Owing to the previously indicated circumstance, a copy of the 1978 ruling was sent to the petitioner.

mh hoskot vs state of Maharashtra Judgment

  • The idea of free legal was examined and determined to be a component of the Indian Constitution in the Madhav Hayawadanrao Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra case.
  • In this case, the petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition four years following the High Court’s verdict since the petitioner received a copy of the judgment after that time.
  • The petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition, but the Supreme Court denied it, stating that it could not alter the concurrent rulings of the two lower courts.
  • In this reference, the Court went into additional detail about article 21 of the indian constitution. Article 21 declares that “no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law,” which is defined as the process that is fair and reasonable.
  • It was stated that “freedom is what freedom does.” As a result, the Sessions Court’s first appeal to the High Court illustrates the importance upheld by article 21 of Indian constitution.
  • The Court further emphasized that, as the Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India case demonstrated, fair judicial procedures are a crucial component of article 21 of the indian constitution.
  • Fair legal procedure includes the Right to Appeal, which is made up of two fundamental components: (1) providing the prisoner with a copy of the judgment in a timely manner so that he can file an appeal; and (2) offering free legal representation to a prisoner who is incapable of obtaining legal representation due to poverty or other circumstances.
  • These are the State’s obligations under article 21 of the indian constitution. Therefore, any Jailor who knowingly withholds a copy of the ruling and tampers with the Court’s proceedings is in violation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
  • The Court also emphasized Article 142 of the Constitution, read in conjunction with Articles 21 and 39-A, which gives the Court the authority to assign a lawyer to an imprisoned person in order to ensure full justice in the event that the prisoner is unable to exercise his or her statutory or constitutional right to appeal, including the right to a special appearance.

With the goal of giving students the best coaching available for law entrance exams including the CLAT, AILET, and various other numerous state judiciary exams, Jyoti Judiciary Coaching, India’s Finest educational Platform, was established. Come enrol now with Jyoti Judiciary!

For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf

Leave a Comment