DSLSA should ensure legal aid counsel show up for court hearings assigned to them: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has directed the Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA) to implement a system for monitoring the presence of legal aid counsel in cases assigned to them [Bachittar Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi and ors]..Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma passed the order after coming across a case where a litigant's plea seeking the registration of a criminal complaint was dismissed by a trial court after his legal aid counsel failed to appear in three court hearings.The Court noted that such cases highlight the challenges faced by disadvantaged individuals who depend on the legal aid system."It raises concerns about whether sufficient safeguards are in place to protect the interests of such petitioners and ensure their right to effective legal representation. For an uneducated individual, who could not afford to hire a private lawyer, the appointment of a legal aid counsel is a significant source of hope … The justice system demands that a person entitled to the assistance of a counsel at State expense is not merely assigned a legal aid counsel in formality but is provided effective legal representation. Failing to do so defeats the constitutional promise of equality before law," Justice Sharma added. .The economic and other disabilities of a litigant cannot be allowed to result in a miscarriage of justice.Delhi High Court.The Court proceeded to restore the litigant's case back to the file of the magistrate. On a parting note, it issued the following directions to ensure that such cases do not get dismissed merely because legal aid counsel fail to show up in Court. 1. 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.2. 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. This is to ensure that timely and effective steps are taken to safeguard the interests of the litigants.3. The DSLSA shall consider establishing a review or grievance redressal mechanism to enable litigants to report instances of non-representation by legal aid counsel, so that corrective measures can be taken without undue delay. 4. Judicial officers should be sensitized and encouraged to ensure that cases where legal aid counsel fail to appear are brought to the notice of concerned Secretary, DSLSA..The Court was hearing a plea challenging the dismissal of a complaint by a trial court. The petition was filed by a man (petitioner) who alleged that he and his wife were issued death threats and that a portion of their house was attacked with an intent to cause harm by certain persons in 2018. After the police failed to register his complaint, the petitioner approach the magistrate with a plea to register a first information report (FIR). An application filed by him the matter was dismissed in May 2023. The case was then posted for "pre-summoning evidence" by the magistrate on another date. Since the petitioner could not afford a private lawyer, he was assigned a lawyer by the legal services authority. However, this legal aid counsel failed to appear before the magistrate on three consecutive dates after the matter was fixed for "pre-summoning evidence."Due to repeated adjournments caused by the absence of this legal aid counsel, the complaint was ultimately dismissed by the magistrate. Later, the sessions court too upheld the dismissal of the complaint, while faulting the litigant for being negligent in prosecuting his case. Aggrieved, the petitioner/ litigant moved the High Court for relief. .The High Court noted that it was not clear why the petitioner's legal aid counsel failed to appear before the trial court and the sessions court. However, it criticised both these courts for its apathetic approach in dismissing the complaint. "A perusal of the orders passed by the learned Magistrate as well as learned Sessions Court reflect a lack of empathy and any initiative on their part to find out as to why the appointed counsel was consistently absent … (it) speaks volumes about the manner in which the legal system sometimes handles vulnerable individuals," the High Court said. It added that in cases involving legal aid, the judicial system, and not just the complainant, has a collective responsibility to ensure that access to justice is not impeded by procedural lapses or personal limitations."A collective duty is cast on all judges and not only upon the Secretary of DSLSA and DLSA(s) of each district ... ... 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," Justice Sharma added. .The High Court proceeded to set aside the orders of the magistrate and the sessions court and directed the restoration of the complaint to its original stage for pre-summoning evidence. The Court also directed the DSLSA to promptly appoint a legal aid counsel for the petitioner and instructed the magistrate to conclude the pre-summoning evidence process within two months..Advocate Archit Upadhyay appeared for the petitioner.Additional Public Prosecutor Rajkumar appeared for the State..[Read Order]