'Large Number Of Cases Before Us Are Of Prolonged Incarceration, Why Not Put In Place A System To Give More Accessibility To Legal Aid ?' Justice S K Kaul

"It is a matter of concern when we compare the number of lawyers enrolled in the country with the legal aid available, especially in the context of the socio-economic strata of society where the litigants can ill afford large amounts of litigation", expressed Justice S. K. Kaul on Saturday. At the same, Justice Kaul insisted, "The person giving legal aid must have empathy for what he is doing. Otherwise, your heart will not be in what you do. That is why Justice Chandrachud spoke of appealing to all lawyers across the board rather than just the empanelled advocates, as they might also be holding some causes dear to themselves and may feel they are willing to devote time to that cause. Somebody may not have time to devote for a general cause but maybe willing in specific causes." Looking at the abysmal state of affairs regarding the access to justice in the criminal jurisdiction, Justice Kaul flagged as one of the issues that an endeavour is made that every person should get a chance to appear and present his case before the court and the legal services authorities must help in realising the same- "We find in our proceedings that a large number of cases are still coming up where people, who had been imprisoned for a long period of time, get the ability to approach the apex court against their conviction only after a period of 15-16 years, when they may have even been entitled to premature release. The initiative has been taken by us to ensure that a sound system is put into place. I am a true believer in the institutionalisation of any system. Why should it happen that when a confirmation of the High Court comes on any sentence, at that stage itself the accessibility to legal aid to move the Supreme Court does not arise?" He explained that one reason is the lack of synergy with the imprisoned and the connectivity with providers of legal aid, and in this context, emphasised on the importance of paralegal persons in analysing their cases and linking them to the legal aid authorities. "Secondly, can we give access immediately thereafter especially in those cases where the period of 14 or 15 years has elapsed and the question of considering them for release is to be examined? I think what ails our judicial system is the time period consumed in the adjudicatory process, whether civil or criminal. And the time taken thereafter to say that all the remedies are exhausted. We have a case where a person has been in custody and we have people coming in at different times saying that they were minors at that point of time. In a murder case recently, repeated verification showed that he not only was a juvenile but 13 years of age when the crime occurred. Today, the report has come for that. Why is this happening? The problem is of connectivity between different stages of scrutiny which are required and to the utmost level- Not just in criminal but civil cases also. Freedom from litigation is needed as much as freedom in person", explained Justice Kaul. As regards civil litigation, the judge reflected on a time-bound schedule with limited tiers of scrutiny to avoid civil disputes being unnecessarily given a criminal colour-"Most civil litigation which is coming before us, if I look at the date of the suit, it is of 25 years before. I am not even looking at the date the appeal was filed, and even that would be 10 to 12 years. These are people who would have completely exhausted themselves even if they had the wherewithal to pursue litigation!" Justice Kaul recommended that in the interest of people who have been stuck in the civil legal system for indefinite periods of time- whether in service or appeal or original jurisdiction- some kind of assessment has to be made about the timelines and the time-span within which they must be finally resolved. "Civil disputes are given criminal colour. It is perceived that a civil suit will take many decades, so let us try to build some kind of pressure and take a shot at resolving the problem on the criminal side. It is an element of frustration with the civil system which does not work at the pace at which it is expected!", said the judge. Continuing, Justice Kaul said, "Lots of disputes need not be carried to the different stages of scrutiny. I believe we have to restrict the multiple scrutiny levels- Revenue matters have six levels, while others may have a little less. We have to determine ultimately how many stages every case is to go through and when it would attain finality. We need to make a survey of which areas of litigation prolong the process and then to see how best to do it through the legal services authority process. There are a large number of civil disputes in agrarian societies, my experience both in Punjab and Haryana and in Tamil Nadu shows that. Second appeals are the second-largest pendency! And these are small matters like water from one 'khet' flowing into another! People have...

'Large Number Of Cases Before Us Are Of Prolonged Incarceration, Why Not Put In Place A System To Give More Accessibility To Legal Aid ?' Justice S K Kaul

Mehal Jain

Tags