Read Time: 11 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court has recently directed the DSLSA to set up a monitoring system to verify the the presence of legal aid counsel in cases assigned to them. It was also directed to set up a grievance redressal mechanism for the litigants to report when such assigned legal aid counsel fail to appear. 

The bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma emphasized, “If legal aid counsels are absent, this constitutional vision (Article 39A) cannot be realized, as vulnerable individuals would be left without the necessary support to secure justice, ultimately undermining the very purpose of Article 39A. Legal aid counsels are thus central to making the promise of equal justice a reality”. 

On February 28, 2018, the petitioner and his wife were allegedly threatened, and their property was damaged by respondent No. 2 and his associates. Despite multiple complaints, no FIR was registered. The petitioner approached the Magistrate but the application was dismissed, and the case proceeded for pre-summoning evidence. 

Repeated absences of the petitioner’s legal aid counsel led to the complaint’s dismissal. The sessions court also rejected the revision petition, holding the petitioner responsible for not filing a complaint against his counsel and concluding that the petition lacked merit. Therefore, the petitioner approached the High Court challenging the order of the Sessions Court. 

The petitioner, represented by Advocate Archit Upadhyay, argued that the Sessions Court overlooked the DLSA’s responsibility to ensure proper legal representation. It was argued that as a layperson, the petitioner should not have suffered due to his counsel’s lapses. Trusting his legal aid lawyer, he refrained from filing a complaint, which should not have been deemed negligence. 

The court noted that the Magistrate while dismissing the complaint failed to take into account the fact that the petitioner was illiterate and was dependent on his legal aid counsel. It was observed that the dismissal occurred without any inquiry into the counsel’s repeated absence.

Furthermore, the court noted that the Sessions Court while dismissing the revision petition, displayed a lack of empathy, holding the complainant responsible for not filing a complaint against his legal aid counsel. 

However, the court opined 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”.

Reflecting upon the facts of this case, the court opined that for an individual with a disadvantaged background, the appointment of a legal aid counsel is a source of hope. However, in cases where the counsel does not appear, the litigants often shy away from filing complaints fearing the consequences of challenging someone they rely on for legal support.  

Noting the above, the court opined that both the Magistrate and the Sessions Court bore a duty to assist the complainant, who remained unassisted despite the assignment of legal aid counsel. The counsel’s repeated absence effectively denied him legal aid, leaving him unheard despite his continuous presence at every hearing. Instead of facilitating justice, the system obstructed his pursuit of legal redress, the court noted.

“In cases involving legal aid, it is the collective responsibility of the judicial system, not just the complainant, to ensure that access to justice is not impeded by procedural lapses or personal limitations”, the court added

The court emphasized that if the petitioner possessed the financial means to engage private counsel, his complaint would not have been dismissed. Despite the procedural assignment of legal aid counsel, he was deprived of substantive and effective legal representation. “The protection and equality guaranteed under the law depend not only on the rights it confers but also on how the law is administered to those without financial means to engage a lawyer”, the court highlighted.

 The court noted that the vulnerability of a financially disadvantaged complainant also stemmed from his limited understanding of the legal system and its procedures. Cases like this demanded judicial sensitivity and awareness. Economic and other disadvantages of a litigant should not be permitted to result in a miscarriage of justice.

Therefore, the court passed the following directions:
“a) The Secretary, DSLSA, is directed 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 of Delhi. 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. 
b) 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.
 c) The DSLSA shall 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.
d) 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”.

For Petitioner: Advocate Archit Upadhyay
For Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor Rajkumar
Case Title: Bachittar Singh v State (2025:DHC:505)