Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Bombay High Court in a significant ruling recently observed and emphasized that priorities have to be given by the advocates to the matters under the Legal Aid Scheme, even though the payment schedule for such matters may not be commensurate to the fees an advocate would possibly command in other matters.

The bench of Justice M.S. Sonak observed that ultimately, this is the service that not only the legal community but also the judiciary owes to the litigating member of the public who may not be able to afford the services of an advocate.

The court made the said observations in an appeal against the order of Ad-hoc District Judge, Margao dismissing a Regular Civil Appeal. Nor the appellant before the District Judge nor his advocate was present and the civil appeal was dismissed due to non-appearance.

Thereafter, in the application for readmission of the appeal, the applicant informed the court that he could not appear due to personal difficulties and his counsel had some other engagement. However, the appeal was not restored and the appellant approached the high court seeking restoration of his civil appeal.

While pulling up the appellant’s lawyer, the court observed that the appellant's advocate under the Legal Aid Scheme should have been more diligent in handling the matter.

When the matter is accepted under the Legal Aid Scheme, the appointed Advocate must diligently attend to the matter. The excuse of being engaged in some other court should not be put forth; in any case, it should not be continuously put forth, said the court.

Further, the court said that “the litigants should not get the impression that quality legal services are not provided to them merely because they are not in a position to afford the services of advocates by paying substantial fees. Access to justice can never be denied to the litigant based upon their economic capacity. Therefore greater responsibility is placed on those who appear under the legal aid scheme.”

In the present matter, both the litigant and his appointed advocate believed that the presiding officer in the case would be biased. Thus, they kept seeking adjournments, as a consequence of which the Presiding Officer dismissed the appeal filed by the litigant in October 2019.

Further, the bench of Justice M.S. Sonak observed that advocates in general, and those appointed under the legal aid scheme, should not unnecessarily involve themselves in making allegations of bias against presiding officers unless the situation clearly warrants it and the facts support such a course.

The court further observed that "they must attend to the case and conduct it to the best of their ability. In a given case, where the situation genuinely requires seeking a transfer, it would no doubt be open to the advocate under the Legal Aid Scheme to advise the litigant accordingly.”

Consequently, the bench ordered the restoration of the civil appeal proceedings while further directing the appellate court to dispose of the regular civil appeal as expeditiously as possible in a time-bound manner. It also imposed costs of Rs 10,000 on the appellant, to be paid to the respondents.

The court while concluding the order appreciated the efforts of the lawyers for the appellant and the respondent for appearing pro bono in the present case and discharging their duties with diligence and fairness.

Advocate Swati Kamat Wagh appeared pro bono for the appellant.

Advocate Varun Bhandankar, who appeared under the legal aid scheme, represented the respondent.

Case title: Pravin Naik v. Srinivas Prabhu Desai