The Supreme Court of India rendered a significant ruling in the case of suk das v union territory of arunachal pradesh [(1986) 2 SCC 401] about the fundamental right to free legal aid pursuant to article 21 of the indian constitution. It states that a person accused of a crime that could endanger their personal freedom has a fundamental right to free legal representation at the expense of the state. The right to fair trial persuant to article 21 of the indian constitution implicitly includes this right.
The Indian Constitution’s Article 21 affirms the fundamental right to free legal aid. article 39a of indian constitution also recognizes this right. article 39a of indian constitution states that the State will ensure that no citizen is excluded from the legal system because of a financial hardship or other form of incapacity. The Indian Constitution contains many important ideas, but it can be difficult to guarantee that they are applied with the same zeal.
However, in a particular case, the court brought fresh meaning to the idea of pro bono legal aid, upholding the spirit of article 21 of the indian constitution. Suk Das v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh is the case in question. The Former Chief Justice P.N. Bhagwati underlined in this historic case how important it is to educate the public about their fundamental right to free legal aid. The Supreme Court also addressed other important issues in this case, including the Magistrate’s duty to advise the accused of these rights and the repercussions of neglecting to seek for legal aid services.
suk das v union territory of arunachal pradesh Case Facts
- In this particular case, the appellant is accused of threatening to rescind the transfer orders of a Public Works Department employee. The appellant was charged under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
- The appellant’s poverty prevented him from affording legal counsel and prevented him from questioning the prosecution’s witnesses in cross-examination.
- An attempt was made by the appellant to cross-examine the relevant witnesses. However, the appellant received a sentence of simple imprisonment for two years.
- The appellant subsequently filed an appeal with the High Court. The allegation was that the trial was tainted because the appellant’s defense was not provided with free legal counsel.
- The appellant had a clear constitutional right to free legal representation, but the High Court held that the decision could not be reversed because the appellant did not ask for legal aid or seek assistance from the Additional Deputy Commissioner.
- After his conviction was upheld by the High Court, the appellant filed an appeal with the Supreme Court.
suk das v union territory of arunachal pradesh Issues
- Does Article 21 of the Indian Constitution offer free legal aid at public expense to a person accused of a crime involving their personal liberty?
- Is it required of the Court or Magistrate to advise the accused of this privilege on its own initiative?
- Does the accused’s lack of knowledge thereby denying them legal counsel invalidate the trial in accordance with article 21 of indian constitution?
Contentions by the Parties
Appellant:
- article 21 of the indian constitution guarantees the right to a fair trial, including free legal aid. When a person’s personal freedom is at risk, the state is required to give an attorney to those who cannot afford one.
- Accused parties may not be aware of this right, so courts must notify them of it; otherwise, the right is meaningless. article 21 of the indian constitution is violated by not doing so.
Respondent:
- The appellant never requested legal assistance. So, a trial is not vitiated by a failure to offer assistance.
suk das v union territory of arunachal Pradesh: Observation by the Court
- The Court noted the ruling in Hussainara Khatoon’s case, which stated that free legal aid should be provided, as suggested by article 21 of the indian constitution, in order to guarantee a just, fair, and reasonable process for any individual accused of a crime.
- Accused parties should be given free legal aid if they are unable to pay for legal representation and cannot afford to live in poverty, indigence, or incommunicado.
- The State is required to offer legal representation if the case demands it unless the individual chooses to decline it freely. As a result, everyone facing criminal charges has the fundamental right to receive free legal representation.
- The Court cited Khatri v. The State of Bihar, wherein it was determined that, in the event that an accused person appears before a magistrate or a sessions judge, the magistrate or the sessions judge shall inform him, if he is not wealthy enough to hire an attorney, of his constitutional right to free legal representation at the expense of the state.
- Following the decision, the Court notified all Sessions Judges and Magistrates across the nation of their need to advise the accused of the availability of free legal representation.
- In addition, the Court established a requirement for receiving legal assistance services.
- The Court stipulated that in order to be eligible for legal aid, the offense had to result in jail time if found guilty and that free legal counsel was necessary in light of the situation and social justice standards. All of these items were related to were reaffirmed in this particular case.
suk das v union territory of arunachal pradesh Judgment
- The appellant was never told that he was eligible for free legal representation, the court said. Despite without having a lawyer to represent him, he was found guilty.
- Due to a constitutional fault that tainted the trial, the appellant’s conviction and sentence ought to be overturned.
- However, if the conviction were overturned, the appellant would have to go through a new trial after being granted free legal representation by the state, as required by law.
- On the other hand, the Court decided that the appellant did not need a new trial. By ensuring a right to fair trial in this manner, the court upheld the Constitution’s intent.
Criticisms
- In this case, the court has defined certain exclusions from the general rule that offers free legal aid to those facing criminal charges. The following was declared: Social justice may demand that the State not give free legal assistance in some circumstances involving offenses like economic offenses, offenses against the law that forbid prostitution or child abuse, and similar offenses.
- This criterion is not all-inclusive nor precisely defined. So, the question of whether some offenses are exempt from receiving legal aid emerges. The exclusive goal of free legal assistance is to guarantee equality before the law by preventing those who are poor or uneducated from suffering just as a result of their circumstances.
- As such, it ought to be the sole criterion and nothing more. It is imperative that all accused individuals, regardless of the nature of the offense they are accused of, have legal representation. Legal aid is mandated by the constitution and is not a means to an end in order to accomplish other objectives like social justice.
- In Rajoo Alias Ramakant v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, the court determined that there is no guarantee that there will be such exclusions to the provision of legal aid. This is because of the Constitution’s mandate and the widely held belief that “everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty.” The court further stated that if one were to accept these kinds of exceptions, they could be inclined to create more, including ones for terrorism and other situations. This could potentially weaken the fundamental rights guaranteed by article 21 of the indian constitution.
An attorney must be assigned to represent an accused individual during the trial if it is determined that he is not represented. Courts must be able to present an accused individual with legal representation prior to the commencement of a trial as required under the constitution. Whether he asks for it or stays mute doesn’t matter in this situation. Unless the accused individual freely states that he does not want a lawyer, the court is required to give one at the beginning of the trial.
If the courts neglected to advise the accused of his right to counsel, the criminal procedures, the ensuing conviction, and the sentence imposed upon him would all be nullified by default. In order to guarantee fair trials, the court therefore approved a historic law, and by doing so therefore upholding the fundamental intent of Article 21 of the Constitution.
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
