Delhi High Court Asks DSLSA To Frame Mechanism To Monitor Appearance Of Legal Aid Counsels In District Courts

The Delhi High Court has directed the Secretary of Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA) to ensure that an appropriate mechanism is put in place to monitor the appearance of legal aid counsels in cases where they have been appointed in all the District Courts in the national capital. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that it must be ensured that legal aid counsels duly inform the Secretary of the concerned DLSA about their regular appearances in the cases assigned to them.“The DSLSA shall also devise a framework to address situations where a legal aid counsel fails to appear for two consecutive dates in a case, ensuring that timely and effective steps are taken to safeguard the interests of the litigants,” the Court said. It further directed the DSLSA to also consider establishing a review or grievance redressal mechanism to enable litigants to report instances of non-representation by legal aid counsels, so that corrective measures can be taken without undue delay.“The judicial officers be also sensitized and encouraged to ensure that such cases are brought to the notice of concerned Secretary, DSLSA, in case of non-representation where a legal aid counsel has been appointed,” the Court directed. Observing that Delhi is home to one of the best legal aid systems in the country with a dedicated legal services authority in every district, the Court said it will be appreciable that the judges would take active steps whenever a legal aid counsel fails to appear.“Since, we as judges are bound by our commitment of ensuring that those who appear before us are adequately, legally represented, a collective duty is cast on all judges and not only upon the Secretary of DSLSA and DLSA(s) of each district,” it said. Justice Sharma was dealing with a plea filed by a complainant challenging the dismissal of his complaint under Section 203 of CrPC as well as for non-prosecution.The complaint was filed alleging that some people abused him and his wife, threatened to kill both of them and demolished the top wall of his house with the intent to harm them. The Magistrate had dismissed the application moved by the man seeking registration of FIR and had fixed the matter for pre summoning evidence. The matter was repeatedly adjourned as his legal aid counsel had not appeared as a result of which the complaint was dismissed. The Court noted that while on each occasion the complainant had sought adjournments on the ground of non-availability of his legal aid counsel, he was present on every date of hearing before the Magistrate.It said that there was no question of the complainant being negligent in pursuing his case as he himself was present on each and every date of hearing, however, the counsel appointed to assist him did not reach the Court.“Had there been a little effort on their part to find out the reason as to why the counsel was repeatedly absent, and would have seen the file, it would have been clear that a legal aid counsel had been appointed by the concerned DLSA, who was earlier appearing for the petitioner/complainant. Such inaction further highlights the non- effective legal aid neglect of the petitioner‟s right to legal representation and effective access to justice,” the Court said. It added that it was the duty of both the Magistrate and the Sessions Court to assist the complainant, who remained practically unassisted despite being assigned a legal aid counsel.“The vulnerability of a financially weaker complainant also lies in the fact that he understands very little about the legal system and its functioning. Cases like the present one cry out for judicial sensitivity and awareness. The economic and other disabilities of a litigant cannot be allowed to result in a miscarriage of justice,” it said.Justice Sharma set aside the orders passed by the Magistrate and Sessions Court and directed that the complaint filed before the Magistrate be restored to its original number and its stage, and be listed for pre-summoning evidence.The Court also requested the concerned DLSA to ensure that a legal aid counsel is appointed at the earliest and directed the Magistrate that the pre-summoning evidence in the case be concluded within two months.Case Title: BACHITTAR SINGH v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORSCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 116Click here to read order

Delhi High Court Asks DSLSA To Frame Mechanism To Monitor Appearance Of Legal Aid Counsels In District Courts

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags