INTRODUCTION
The case, Suhas Chakma vs. Union of India (2024), concerned prisoners, especially undertrial prisoners, and their problem in accessing legal aid in India. The origin of the case stems from the questions that arose with respect to the effectiveness of the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA), in the implementation of providing free legal representation ensuring a fair trial and justice.
Therefore, the case addressed significant issues concerning prisoners and their rights, and the court directed reformations that ought to be established, in representing them in legal proceedings.
FACTS
The was initiated by filing a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, to address and bring in the issue of prisoners and their access to legal aid before the court of law. The Supreme Court, therein, appointed Senior Advocate Shri Vijay Hansaria as “amicus curiae” for this case.
Following this, the case looked into matters of the subject matter, especially with regard to, firstly, the system of Jail Visiting Lawyers (JVL), who are appointed by the legal aid services to give legal advice to prisoners and visit legal aid clinics in jail. Secondly, the functioning and operations of the said Prison Legal Aid Clinics (PLACs).
It is important to note that NALSA, revised the existing format for the collection of data for JVLs during their visit and interaction with prisoners in jail. This format was communicated to all the State Legal Services Authority (SLSA) so that a certain level of uniformity is maintained in the instance of reporting.
The said reports by all the states for communicated back to NALSA, enlisting the legal aid services provided to prisoners and their implementation by each state. The reports gave away the status that, NALSA has visited jail and interacted with 456,798 prisoners/inmates, out of which 324,867 were provided with appropriate legal aid services. Amid this, there were still questions and issues with prisoners not filing appeals, and the report reveals reasons for the same as well. It has been that, with some who are convinced of their sentence in jail, many do not file appeals due to financial problems, while others are concerned that their existing sentence may be increased.
Therefore, the petitioners based on this made a request the principles being stated in this case, is to be set as a precedent for all the states with regard to provisions on legal aid services. Which is meant to ensure fair trial and justice for prisoners, as provided in Articles 21 and 22 as constitutional rights.
ISSUES
- Whether the legal aid services provided to prisoners are effectively implemented, through the JVLs and PLACs?
- What are the reasons that restrict the prisoner convicts from filing appeals, and in what ways can legal aid mechanisms be improved to remove these obstacles?
- Whether the principles laid down in the judgment of Ramu v. State of U.P. be employed throughout the country to provide equal opportunity for legal aid to all prisoners uniformly?
ARGUMENTS
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioners argued, that there exists serious ineffectiveness in the functioning and providing of legal aid services for prisoners, which subjects them to not receiving the required legal advice. This results in the prisoners not even being aware of their rights, which puts them in a position of not being able to access legal aid systematically.
The petitioners also addressed the significant issue concerning appeals and their delays in filing, owing to not being aware or informed of the right to appeal, lack of counsel providing the service, and other procedural challenges. This puts the prisoners in the position of not being able to access their rights.
The issue regarding the legal aid services system was also questioned. Wherein, the petitioners asserted that in a few of the cases, the appointed legal counsels weren’t working effectively towards representing the prisoners. Therefore, violating constitutional rights, that is the right to a fair trial of the prisoner, and thus, states the need to appoint well-trained legal aid lawyers, to ensure effective representation before the court of law. The need for this is also due to the fact of overcrowding of prisons, where they are subjected to inhumane and degrading treatment, thus argued that Article 39-A of the Constitution is required to be implemented properly, as it mandates free legal aid and justice.
In this context, the petitioners articulated the need to establish enhanced monitoring mechanisms to keep track of or record the status of legal aid services to prisoners, especially undertrial prisoners. Also, the significance of the legal aid services is to update, and review the data, to ensure effective implementation.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondents, representing NALSA, did acknowledge the challenges that exist in the implementation of the framework of legal aid services for prisoners in this context. Therein, the respondents stated the steps/measures taken by NALSA, SLSA, and DSLA as a reply to the pertinent issues stated by the petitioners.
Wherein, they highlighted the systematic functioning of the Legal Aid Defence Counsel Systems in nearly 611 districts and the establishment of PLCAs as a measure to ensure effective implementation. Also, stated the steps that were taken by them with regard to the filing of appeals by the prisoners, and reports for the same with reasons were prepared.
Amid this, they argued about the establishment of the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) and its importance of the same regarding the present subject matter. Wherein, several measures have already been introduced and implemented and asserted the significant role played by JVLs and PLACs in bringing legal aid services closer to prisoners.
They also emphasized the various outreach/awareness programmes that were introduced, like distributing information about their right to legal aid services in local languages and communicating with prisoners who have not filed appeals. The mentioned efforts are being reviewed by NALSA regularly and updated if needed.
While the respondent agreed to put on record of the monitoring and reporting systems, they thus contended that NALSA had already laid down mechanisms to periodically review and audit the work assigned to the Legal Aid Defence Counsel. They also declared that the SLSAs and DLSAs were carrying out monthly inspections of the PLACs and sending their reports to NALSA.
The respondents emphasized that not all prisoners could be provided legal aid, particularly those not eager to appeal, those with multiple cases, or those who had been convicted recently. They expressed the view that such factors were beyond the direct control of the administration of the services.
JUDGEMENT
A division bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan, passed a landmark judgment regarding systemic flaws in prisoners’ legal aid. While underlining the constitutional right to effective legal representation, the bench ordered that the basic tenets laid down in Ramu v. State of U.P. should be followed uniformly in all states and Union Territories. It underlined the requirement of available legal aid at all levels of detention, trials, and appeals and, most of all, for undertrials. It also called for increased awareness programs regarding prisoners’ rights. The Court ordered an increase in training for legal aid lawyers, frequent performance evaluations, and improved data collection to effectively monitor the implementation of legal aid.
To ensure accountability, the Court directed the NALSA to periodically review and audit the legal aid services concerning the functioning of Jail Visiting Lawyers, Legal Aid Defence Counsel Systems, and Undertrial Review Committees. “The SOPs as laid down for UTRCs shall be scrupulously followed to facilitate timely reviews leading to prisoner releases,” it added. Fully taking into consideration the plethora of barriers that result in sentence enhancement, ranging from fear to ignorance, the Court underscored assistance in filing appeals and ordered quarterly progress reports from NALSA on compliance. The judgment remains another stride toward proper legal representation of prisoners across the country.
