Supreme Court Ensures Free Legal Aid Access for Prisoners: Suhas Chakma vs. Union of India (2024)

Date of the Judgment: 23rd October 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 813
Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., K.V. Viswanathan, J.

Can every prisoner access free legal aid, ensuring their rights are protected? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a Public Interest Litigation, emphasizing the constitutional mandate for equal justice and free legal aid, particularly for those incarcerated. This judgment highlights the proactive measures taken by the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) to ensure that no prisoner is deprived of legal representation due to economic or other disabilities.

The bench comprised of Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan. The judgment was authored by Justice K.V. Viswanathan.

Case Background

The Writ Petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, primarily addressing the issue of torture, cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment of prisoners due to overcrowding and unhygienic conditions in jails. The petition also sought to ensure that all persons deprived of their liberty are treated with humanity and respect for their inherent dignity. A key prayer was to create a permanent mechanism to decongest overcrowded prisons.

Initially, the Court appointed Shri Vijay Hansaria as Amicus Curiae on 22.04.2024. Subsequently, on 09.05.2024, Shri K. Parameshwar and Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar were requested to assist the Court alongside the already appointed Amicus Curiae. The Court identified two main issues: Open Correctional Institutions and the modalities for lawyer visitation to ensure free legal aid for deserving prison inmates. The Court took on record and approved a modified letter to be filled by Jail Visiting Lawyers (JVLs) to collect information on free legal aid for convicts.

On 15.07.2024, NALSA reported that the approved letter had been circulated to all State Legal Services Authorities (SLSAs), directing them to compile data received from JVLs. The Court received responses from various states, and on 09.09.2024, a detailed note was placed on record by Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar regarding access to free legal aid for prison inmates. This judgment specifically addresses the aspect of access to free legal aid, while the issue of “Open Correctional Institutions” will be considered separately.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Supreme Court took cognizance of the writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The Court appointed Shri Vijay Hansaria as Amicus Curiae to assist in the matter. Subsequently, Shri K. Parameshwar and Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar were also requested to assist the Court. The Court identified two broad issues: one pertaining to Open Correctional Institutions and the other concerning the modalities for visitation by lawyers in jail to ensure free legal aid to the deserving prison inmates. The Court also took on record and approved the modified letter to be filled by Jail Visiting Lawyers (JVLs) regarding information to convicts on free legal aid. The present judgment deals with the aspect of access to free legal aid for prison inmates, and the issue of “Open Correctional Institutions” will be heard and considered separately.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily relies on Article 39-A of the Directive Principles of State Policy, which mandates equal justice and free legal aid. Article 39-A states:

“The State shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, on a basis of equal opportunity, and shall, in particular, provide free legal aid, by suitable legislation or schemes or in any other way, to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities.”

The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, was enacted to give effect to this constitutional goal. The Act aims to provide free and competent legal services to the weaker sections of society, ensuring that no citizen is denied justice due to economic or other disabilities. Key sections include:

• Section 3: Establishes the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA).
• Section 4: Outlines the functions of NALSA, including policy-making, framing schemes, and monitoring legal aid programs.
• Section 6 & 9: Deal with the constitution of State and District Legal Services Authorities.
• Section 12: States that every person in custody is entitled to legal services.
• Section 13: Mandates that eligible persons receive legal services if they have a prima facie case.

The judgment also references several key judicial pronouncements, including:

• Hussainara Khatoon and Others (IV) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna (1980) 1 SCC 98: Held that undertrial prisoners should be informed of their right to bail and free legal aid. The court emphasized that a procedure which does not make available legal services to an accused person who is too poor to afford a lawyer cannot possibly be regarded as “reasonable, fair and just”.
• Khatri and Others (2) v. State of Bihar and Others, (1981) 1 SCC 627: Reiterated that the right to free legal services would be illusory unless the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge informs the accused of such right.
• Suk Das v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh, (1986) 2 SCC 401: Held that free legal assistance for the poor and indigent at the cost of the State is a fundamental right under Article 21, even if the person does not seek legal assistance on their own.
• Madhav Hayawadanrao Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra, (1978) 3 SCC 544: Stated that the right to counsel for a prisoner is a fundamental right traceable to Article 21, and that procedural safeguards are essential for liberty.
• Sunil Batra (II) v. Delhi Administration, (1980) 3 SCC 488: Affirmed that the writ power of the court can be used to rescue prisoners whose rights are violated and that lawyers nominated by the court should be given all facilities for interviews and communication with prisoners.

These provisions and pronouncements collectively underscore the constitutional and legal obligation to provide free and effective legal aid to all persons in custody, ensuring that justice is accessible to everyone, regardless of their economic status.

Arguments

The primary arguments revolved around the implementation of free legal aid for prisoners, with the Amicus Curiae and NALSA highlighting various aspects.

Submissions by the Amicus Curiae:

• The Amicus Curiae, Mr. Vijay Hansaria, emphasized the need for effective implementation of the existing legal framework to ensure that all prisoners, especially those who are poor and indigent, have access to free legal aid.
• The Amicus Curiae also highlighted the need for a robust mechanism to ensure that prisoners are made aware of their right to appeal and the availability of free legal services.
• Mr. Hansaria also drew the attention of the court to the judgment of Justice Ajay Bhanot of the Allahabad High Court in Ramu v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine All 4618, and prayed that the appeal of the 870 convicts who had expressed their willingness to file appeals be filed within 4 weeks, if not already filed, and an updated status report be filed by NALSA giving details of the convicts who have consented to file the appeals through legal aid.

Submissions by NALSA:

• NALSA, represented by Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar, submitted a detailed note outlining the various initiatives and measures taken by the authority to provide free legal aid to prisoners.
• NALSA highlighted the formulation of the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) on access to legal aid services to prisoners and the functioning of Prison Legal Aid Clinics (PLACs). The SOP deals with the setting up and functioning of PLACs, the roles and responsibilities of legal aid functionaries, the process of applying for legal aid, and the provision of legal information to prisoners.
• NALSA also detailed the duties of Jail Visiting Lawyers (JVLs) and Paralegal Volunteers (PLVs), who play a crucial role in identifying prisoners in need of legal assistance, providing legal advice, and facilitating the filing of applications for bail, parole, etc.
• NALSA also highlighted the introduction of the Legal Aid Defense Counsel System, which aims to strengthen and professionalize legal services by providing dedicated, full-time experienced lawyers to represent the accused.
• NALSA provided statistical data on the number of prisoners interacted with, the number of inmates provided legal assistance, and the number of appeals filed by convicts in various courts.
• NALSA also detailed the special campaigns undertaken for prisoners to ensure timely access to justice, including securing appellate rights, ensuring that incarceration does not exceed the period of imprisonment, and securing parole/furlough and remission rights.
• NALSA also addressed the issue of pre-litigation assistance, highlighting the “Early Access to Justice at Pre-Arrest, Arrest and Remand Stage Framework,” which provides legal assistance to suspects/arrestees during interrogation and at the police station.
• NALSA also detailed the implementation of the E-Prison Module and E-Kiosks in prisons to provide prisoners and their relatives with access to information about their cases.

[TABLE] of Submissions:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a numbered list in the judgment. However, the core issues addressed by the court can be summarized as follows:

• The effectiveness of the existing mechanisms for providing free legal aid to prisoners, particularly those who are poor and indigent.
• The adequacy of measures taken by NALSA to ensure that all prisoners are aware of their right to legal representation and the availability of free legal aid.
• The implementation and monitoring of the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) on access to legal aid services to prisoners and the functioning of Prison Legal Aid Clinics (PLACs).
• The functioning of the Legal Aid Defense Counsel System and its contribution to the quality of legal services provided to prisoners.
• The need for continuous improvement and periodic review of the legal aid mechanisms to address any shortcomings and ensure that the constitutional goal of equal justice and free legal aid is achieved.
• The measures to be taken for pre-litigation assistance to ensure that the rights of the accused are protected even before formal legal proceedings commence.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on several key authorities to support its judgment, categorized by the legal points they address:

Constitutional Provisions:

• Article 39-A of the Constitution of India: Mandates equal justice and free legal aid.
• Article 21 of the Constitution of India: Guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, interpreted to include the right to free legal aid.

Judicial Pronouncements:

Statutory Provisions:

• The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987: Enacted to provide free and competent legal services to the weaker sections of society.
• Section 341 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: Provides for legal aid to the accused at state expense in certain cases.

Judgment

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Suhas Chakma vs. Union of India is a comprehensive directive aimed at strengthening the provision of free legal aid to prisoners. The Court commended the work already done by NALSA, SLSAs, and DLSAs and issued several directions to ensure the effective implementation of legal aid mechanisms.

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court relied on the previous judgments to reinforce the importance of free legal aid as a constitutional right, the obligation of the courts to inform the accused of their right to legal aid, and the need for effective implementation of legal aid mechanisms. The Court also relied on the statutory provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and Section 341 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to emphasize the legal basis for providing free legal aid.

• Hussainara Khatoon and Others (IV) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna [CITATION]: The Court used this case to underscore the necessity of informing undertrial prisoners about their right to bail and free legal aid, emphasizing that a procedure without legal services for the poor is unjust.
• Khatri and Others (2) v. State of Bihar and Others [CITATION]: This case was cited to reinforce that Magistrates and Sessions Judges are obligated to inform accused persons about their right to free legal services if they cannot afford a lawyer.
• Suk Das v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh [CITATION]: The Court relied on this case to highlight that free legal assistance is a fundamental right under Article 21, even if not explicitly requested by the person.
• Madhav Hayawadanrao Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra [CITATION]: This case was used to emphasize that the right to counsel for a prisoner is a fundamental right under Article 21, and procedural safeguards are indispensable for liberty.
• Sunil Batra (II) v. Delhi Administration [CITATION]: The Court cited this to affirm that the writ power of the court can be used to protect prisoners’ rights and that lawyers nominated by the court should be given all facilities for interviews and communication with prisoners.
• Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of U.P. [CITATION]: The Court cited this case to emphasize that the duty of the State is not just to provide a counsel for namesake, but to provide a counsel who defends the accused diligently to the best of their abilities.
• Girish Gandhi vs. State of UP [CITATION]: The Court referred to this case to highlight that excessive bail conditions virtually defeat the purpose of bail and that bail conditions must be reasonable and proportionate.
• Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation [CITATION]: The Court cited this case to emphasize that imposing a condition which is impossible to comply with would defeat the very object of release.
• Ramu v. State of U.P. [CITATION]: The Court took note of this case and directed that the appeal of the 870 convicts who had expressed their willingness to file appeals be filed within 4 weeks, if not already filed.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the constitutional mandate for equal justice and free legal aid, as enshrined in Article 39-A of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that the State has a duty to ensure that no citizen is denied justice due to economic or other disabilities. The Court also considered the various judicial pronouncements that have consistently upheld the right to free legal aid as a fundamental right under Article 21.

The Court also took into account the detailed submissions made by NALSA, which highlighted the various initiatives and measures taken by the authority to provide free legal aid to prisoners. The Court recognized the significant efforts made by NALSA, SLSAs, and DLSAs but also noted the need for continuous improvement and effective implementation of existing mechanisms.

The Court was also concerned about the practical challenges faced by prisoners in accessing legal aid, such as lack of awareness, difficulty in filing appeals, and the need for pre-litigation assistance. The Court’s directions were aimed at addressing these challenges and ensuring that the legal aid system functions effectively at all levels.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio:

The Court’s reasoning was heavily influenced by legal considerations, with a focus on the constitutional and statutory framework for providing free legal aid. The factual aspects of the case primarily served to highlight the need for better implementation of existing laws and policies.

Logical Reasoning Flowchart:

The Court’s reasoning began with the constitutional and fundamental right to free legal aid. It then reviewed the efforts made by NALSA and identified the gaps in implementation. Finally, it issued directions to ensure effective implementation of legal aid mechanisms.

Key Takeaways

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Suhas Chakma vs. Union of India has several practical implications:

• Enhanced Implementation of Legal Aid Mechanisms: NALSA, SLSAs, and DLSAs are directed to ensure the efficient operation of the SOP on access to legal aid services and to periodically update and improve the measures prescribed under the SOP-2022.
• Strengthening of Legal Aid Defense Counsel System: The Legal Aid Defense Counsel System is to be strengthened, with periodic inspections and audits of the work of the Legal Aid Defense Counsels.
• Increased Awareness of Legal Aid: A robust mechanism is to be put in place to ensure that the various beneficial schemes promoted by the Legal Services Authorities reach the nook and corner of the nation. This includes promotional campaigns in local languages and creative measures like street plays.
• Review of Under Trial Review Committee (UTRC) Procedures: The UTRC procedures are to be periodically reviewed and updated, with particular attention to the gap between the number of persons identified for release and the number of bail applications filed.
• Diligence in Pre-Litigation Assistance: The “Early Access to Justice at Pre-arrest, Arrest and Remand Stage Framework” is to be diligently pursued, with periodic reviews of thework undertaken under the framework.
• Filing of Appeals: The appeals of the 870 convicts who had expressed their willingness to file appeals must be filed within 4 weeks, if not already filed.
• Statistical Data and Corrective Measures: The Legal Services Authorities are directed to periodically update statistical data, analyze results, and take corrective measures to address any shortcomings.

Future Impact:

• Reduced Overcrowding in Prisons: By ensuring that prisoners have access to legal aid, the judgment aims to reduce the number of undertrial prisoners and decongest overcrowded jails.
• Improved Access to Justice: The judgment will ensure that no prisoner is deprived of legal representation due to economic or other disabilities, thereby promoting equal justice for all.
• Enhanced Protection of Prisoners’ Rights: The judgment will enhance the protection of prisoners’ rights, including their right to appeal, bail, parole, and remission.
• More Effective Implementation of Legal Aid Schemes: The judgment will lead to more effective implementation of legal aid schemes and better coordination among NALSA, SLSAs, and DLSAs.
• Increased Awareness and Understanding of Legal Rights: The judgment will lead to increased awareness and understanding of legal rights among prisoners, their families, and the general public.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Suhas Chakma vs. Union of India is a landmark decision that reaffirms the constitutional mandate for equal justice and free legal aid, particularly for those incarcerated. The judgment highlights the proactive measures taken by NALSA to ensure that no prisoner is deprived of legal representation due to economic or other disabilities. It also underscores the importance of effective implementation of legal aid mechanisms and the need for continuous improvement and periodic review of the legal aid system.

By issuing specific directions to NALSA, SLSAs, and DLSAs, the Supreme Court has ensured that the constitutional goal of equal justice and free legal aid is not merely a theoretical concept but a practical reality for all persons in custody. The judgment sets a precedent for future cases and will have a significant impact on the lives of prisoners across the country. It is a step forward in the pursuit of a more just and equitable legal system.

This judgment is a testament to the Supreme Court’s commitment to protecting the fundamental rights of all citizens, especially those who are most vulnerable. It is a reminder that the pursuit of justice is an ongoing process and that the legal system must continually strive to ensure that the promise of equal justice is fulfilled for everyone.