9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Entitlement to legal representation in the High Court u/s Article 39-A of the Constitution and the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
The judgment addresses the issue of whether the appellant was entitled to legal representation in the High Court. The appellant, Rajoo, was convicted of gang rape along with others, and while the High Court set aside the conviction for some, it upheld Rajoo's conviction. The Supreme Court emphasized the constitutional and statutory provisions, highlighting Article 39-A of the Constitution and the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, which ensure free legal aid to secure justice for all citizens, regardless of economic status. The Act provides for legal services at all stages of proceedings, without distinction between trial and appellate stages, and free of cost. The Court referred to past decisions emphasizing the fundamental right to legal representation for accused persons, even if they do not request it, to ensure a fair trial. The judgment also discusses a different perspective from a New Zealand case, where the issue of legally aided defendants choosing their counsel was examined. While the New Zealand court emphasized the right to a fair trial and legal representation, it noted that the state's role is passive in providing legal assistance, except in cases of insufficient means. In contrast, the Supreme Court in India takes a proactive approach, obligating the court to inquire if the accused requires legal representation at state expense. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the High Court was obligated to inquire if Rajoo needed legal assistance and provide it at state expense. As there was no indication of such inquiry in the case record, the appeal was set aside, and the case was remitted back to the High Court for a fresh hearing, emphasizing the importance of expediting the process.
|
