Case Note & Summary
The case involved a petition filed by an advocate facing trial for murder under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner argued that he could not afford competent legal representation while the State was represented by a team of well-paid lawyers. He sought a writ of Mandamus to compel the State to provide financial assistance for hiring a lawyer of his choice, claiming a violation of his rights under Articles 22(1) and 39-A of the Constitution. The respondent contended that the petition was not maintainable and that the petitioner should apply for free legal aid under Section 304(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The court dismissed the petition, ruling that the right to counsel does not equate to an absolute right to State-funded representation. It clarified that the social objective of free legal aid must be achieved through legislative measures, and the petitioner should seek assistance from the Additional Sessions Judge, who could assign a lawyer if the petitioner met the criteria of lack of means. The court also noted that the existing remuneration scales for empanelled lawyers were inadequate and directed the High Court to consider revising these scales. The petition was ultimately dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Right to Counsel - Right to be defended by a legal practitioner of choice - Article 22(1) and Article 39-A of the Constitution of India - The court held that the right to be defended by a legal practitioner of choice does not guarantee an absolute right to be supplied with a lawyer by the State, and the remedy lies in applying for free legal aid under Section 304(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The court emphasized that the social objective of equal justice and free legal aid must be implemented through legislation or schemes (Paras 986 C-E, 990 A-F). B) Criminal Procedure - Free Legal Aid - Provision for legal aid at State expense - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 304 - The court directed that if the accused is unable to engage a counsel due to lack of means, the Additional Sessions Judge must provide free legal aid, ensuring that the trial is not vitiated (Paras 986 F-H, 991 A-F).
Issue of Consideration
Whether an accused is entitled to engage counsel of his choice at State expense under Article 22(1) and Article 39-A of the Constitution.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the petitioner was not entitled to State-funded legal representation and should seek free legal aid through the Additional Sessions Judge under Section 304 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Law Points
- Right to legal representation
- Free legal aid
- Directive Principles of State Policy
- Article 22(1)
- Article 39-A
- Code of Criminal Procedure
- 1973
- Section 304
