.

SUK DAS VS.UNION TERRITORY OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

FACTS OF THE CASE

• The appellant and five other accused were charged for an offence under section 506[1] read with
section 34 of the Indian Penal Code[2], in the court of the Additional Deputy Commissioner,
Dibang Valey, Anni, Arunachal Pradesh. The allegations made against the appellants were that
they had threatened a government official (Assistant Engineer) in Central Public Works
Department to cancel the transfer orders issued against them.
• As a result, a trial commenced in the court of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, and the
witnesses were examined one by one. However, the appellant was not provided any legal
representation in the court and he could not afford one due to poverty and as a result, he was unable
to be represented by a lawyer which further resulted in the inability to cross-examination. Out of
seven witnesses, five were examined without any legal assistance which results in the conviction
of the appellant and another accused for a period of two years of simple imprisonment.

• The appellant appealed to the Guwahati High Court. The contention was that accused were not
provided free legal aid for his defence and therefore the trial should be vitiated. However, the High
Court took the view that as the appellant himself did not provide any application to the learned
Additional Deputy Commissioner for legal aid, therefore, it was assumed that he had waived the
right to representation and in light of the same; the trial against him cannot be vitiated. However,
as the appellant had already served eight months of imprisonment, High Court looking at the
circumstances, reduced the sentence to that already undergone by him. Aggrieved by same, the
appellant made a special leave appeal in the Supreme Court against this conviction.
 ISSUES

• Whether the right to free legal aid as a fundamental right is conditional upon application for free
legal assistance?

• Can the trial lawfully proceed without adequate legal representation being awarded to the accused?

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER

• The petitioners contended that the trial against them should be vitiated as they were deprived of
their fundamental right of access to free legal aid under article 21 of the constitution by the state.

• The appellant also contended that if the conviction against him is set aside, then he must be restored
to his service which was quashed on account of his conviction by the learned Additional Deputy
Commissioner, along with full payment of back wages.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

• The Respondent argued that as the appellant himself did not make any application for free legal
services or legal representation by a lawyer, they cannot seek vitiation of the trial on that account,
i.e., they have waived their right to free legal aid.

OBSERVATIONS BY THE COURT

The bench of the Supreme Court observed many aspects of this case and gave their view
accordingly.
• The court pointed out that the right to free legal aid is a constitutional right guaranteed to all
citizens under Part III of the constitution. It is an essential ingredient of reasonable, fair, and just
procedural right of the accused and accordingy, he should be provided with legal services for his
need. This principle was well established by the Supreme Court in “Hussainara Khatoon v. State
of Bihar[3]”. The court had took the same view in “M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra[4]”as
well, where right to free legal aid was extended to prisoners serving sentence. The court also
declared that it is constitutional and statutory duty of the state to provide necessary legal assistance
to a person who may involved in jeopardy to his life or personal liberty as per rule of law.
• The court took cognizance of the substantive matter and observed that in our country, 70% or more
belong to a rural area with illiteracy inherited in them. Also, being literate, many of them are not
aware of the rights granted to them by the law. Therefore, because of this ignorance and
unawareness, not many people can become self-reliant. As well said by Justice Bhagwati, “The
law ceases to be their protector because they do not know that they are entitled to the protection of
the law and they can avail the legal service program for putting an end to their exploitation and
winning their rights”.
• The court also relied on the case of “Khatri and Ors. V. State of Bihar[5]” wherein it was ruled
that either the Magistrate or the Sessions judge in front of whom the accused had appeared is under
an obligation to inform the accused of their legal aid rights conferred upon him by the law, i.e., if
the accused is unable to engage the services of a lawyer on account of poverty, he is entitled to get
free legal services at the cost of the state. Using this precedence, the court laid emphasis on legal
education and awareness to poor, literate, illiterate, and everyone. Thus, as per the words of Justice
Bhagwati, “That is why it has always been recognized as one of the principal items of the program
of the legal aid movement in the country to promote legal literacy“.
• The court acknowledged the surprising move by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner that
as this declaration of law was well-established in “Khatri and ors v. State of Bihar[6]”, still the
Additional Deputy Commissioner did not inform the appellant about his entitlement to free legal
services by the state. Due to this, the accused could not be represented by a lawyer, resulting in his
conviction. This shows a clear violation of Article 21 of the constitution.

JUDGMENT BY THE COURT

• As per the stated facts, the appellant was dismissed from his services without holding an inquiry
on account of his being convicted for a criminal offence and since now the conviction is set aside
by the court, the appellant must also be restored to his service but without back wages.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS

In the present case, the Supreme Court in its judgment emphasized providing free legal aid and
services to the needy and poor who cannot afford legal services and are left unrepresented.
Additionally, the right to free legal services seems to be illusory for an accused unless he is being
informed by the Magistrate or the Sessions judge of the same. The judgment further stated that
leaving on the part of poor and ignorant accused to ask for free legal services would prove to be a
mockery of legal aid. Further, the court denied the appellant’s request to stand a fresh trial, so that
the appellants could not be exposed to the risk of conviction and lose their services again.

The Apex court in “Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra”[7] had placed a similar view that
providing legal aid to a poor or indigent person is a constitutional obligation, reiterated not only
by Article 39A but also by Article 14 and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Thus, C.J Bhagwati
observed, “the aforesaid is a necessary sine qua non of justice and where it is not provided,
injustice is likely to result, and undeniably, every act of injustice corrodes the foundation of
democracy and rule of law”. Thus, the Supreme Court established through this case that free legal
aid to an accused, who by reasons of poverty or incommunicado is unable to afford it, should be
provided at the cost of the state and this condition is part of fair, just and reasonable procedure
under article 21 of the Constitution.