Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 – Counsel for the Petitioner in this matter was appointed as amicus curiae for the Petitioner – He brought attention to the Court that in this, as well as other matters he was appointed as amicus curiae, he was only provided with the copies of the impugned judgment and the trial Court judgment preceding it, severely hampering effective representation – Held: This, from the frequent grievances raised by advocates appearing, seems to be reflective of a general practice, particularly in criminal matters – This practice only serves to handicap those advocates who seek to do a commendable service to the legal institutions by offering themselves as legal aid lawyers and amicus curiae for the cause of those otherwise unrepresented – In the absence of being provided with the full record of a particular matter, the promise of “free and competent legal services” made by the 1987 Act can only remain unfulfilled for those in the greatest need for justice and representation – For better and more effective legal representation, following directions are issued: a) The Secretary, National Legal Services Authority shall, with immediate effect, instruct all concerned authorities under the 1987 Act to make available all documents (along with official translations) pertaining to a matter to the concerned legal aid counsel; b) The Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, and all the High Court and Taluk Legal Services Committees are also instructed to ensure that the legal aid counsel is provided all relevant records of the matter (along with official translations of any documents in vernacular language); c) By way of ample caution, this Court also clarifies that these documents would include, but are not limited to, pleadings, affidavits, applications filed in civil proceedings; and the First Information Report, Charge Sheet and annexed documents including witness statements, record of the trial proceedings, testimonies, and exhibits brought on record in criminal proceedings.
Rakesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2011) 12 SCC 513; Shaik Mukthar & anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2020) SCC OnLine SC 1091 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.