Click the Play button to listen to article

The Bombay High Court has directed its Legal Aid Department to explain the criteria followed for providing legal aid to litigants claiming financial incapacity, including whether their income is independently verified before appointing legal aid counsel. The Court observed that since professional fees of lawyers appointed through legal aid are paid from the State exchequer, it would like to ascertain the basis on which such assistance is granted.

Justice Milind N. Jadhav was hearing a petition filed by a 45-year-old man seeking relief in an FIR registered against him under Section 66(C) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and Sections 500 and 419 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in connection with allegedly defamatory and objectionable messages posted on Twitter, connected to a complaint in relation to certain high-ranking officials working in HPCL and also against the Central Union Minister for Petroleum.

The petitioner was represented by an advocate appointed through legal aid. He had approached the High Court through emails and letters, stating that he was financially incapacitated, suffered from a mental health ailment and could not travel from New Delhi to Mumbai due to financial constraints.

The Court noted that there was no independent verification of his financial condition and that the only medical document on record was a certificate issued in 2020.

“There is no independent verification of this aspect, neither about his health condition save and except for a solitary letter issued in the year 2020. What criteria has been applied by this Court's office to provide him Legal Aid Counsel and whether he is eligible and entitled for the same is also not clear from the record placed before Court,” the Court observed.

The Court noted that the petitioner has tendered apology for his posts. However, the Court held that the posts of the petitioner are per se defamatory, and the law will have to take its own course. It observed that there is not enough material before it to stay the proceedings.

The Court questioned whether a mere assertion of financial incapacity could be sufficient for extending legal aid, highlighting that this would otherwise mean legal aid would have to be provided to every person making such a claim.

“The reason why I am impelled to pass this order is because when legal aid is provided to any person who is entitled to the same, all professional fees of the Advocate who appears for such a person are required to be paid from the State's Exchequer and therefore, this Court would like to know the criteria for giving legal aid to persons,” the Court expounded.

The Court accordingly directed the Legal Aid Department to inform it about the criteria for granting legal aid and the basis on which applicants are assessed. It specifically sought clarification on whether the petitioner's financial status had been investigated and whether his annual income had been certified by the Tahsildar, which the Court noted was the norm usually considered before granting or extending legal aid.

Case Title: Rajesh Kumar Satyapal Surlia v. The State of Maharashtra [Writ Petition No. 3963 of 2025]

Full View
Tags: