Why @Janlokpal Is AGAINST Free Legal Aid to Accused?

Despite whatever heat Lokpal vs Janlokpal is generating, the present post is derived from the vehement opposition by team Anna to the proposal by Govt. to provide for free legal aid (wrongly written as aide  by some) to the Accused in a proceeding before the Lokpal. In fact, on one site, Arvind Kejriwal is quoted as saying,

“For the first time in this country, the government will provide free legal aide and counsel to a corrupt official.”

What baffles me is that Team Anna, which is objecting the clause, comprises of a former cop who could have been, and should have been, appointed as Commissioner of Delhi. The team also comprises of a former Judge and His Honour Hegde has an impeccable reputation.

The clause in question is Section 56 of the Bill which is reproduced here:

56. The Lokpal shall provide to every person against whom a complaint has been made, before it, under this Act, legal assistance to defend his case before the Lokpal, if such assistance is requested for.

Let us examine what happens in a routine matter in court: An accused in a criminal matter, similarly a party in a civil action, approaches through a lawyer to present the case. In a case where a person has not engaged or cannot afford a lawyer, the Judge directs the Legal Aid Cell to provide legal representation to such a person. Without an apt legal representation, the Judge is not precluded to apply his mind to the case at hand and does examine the matter. However, a lawyer can, and always, assist the Judge.

In a case when a legal representation is not available to a person, the only plausible outcome is that the verdict in such eventuality shall be overturned by the superior court on the grounds of unfair trial since a person had no legal representation and could not present his points properly.

However, the learned Team Anna is making it quite visible that an Accused, a corrupt official according to them, should not get a free legal aid which, though, is carved on stone by our Constitution.

I cannot even imagine of calling an Accused corrupt with same conviction with which Team Anna does because deep down inside I still remember what was taught in law school that it is our job only to present a case, not to decide it. That privilege, apparently, along with Team Anna now, is only with a Judge.

By depriving a person from a legal representation, what Team Anna is assuring is that whatever result Lokpal gives, shall fall since the aggrieved person will be able to substantiate, quite easily too, that his trial was unfair and he was deprived of a legal representation.

I do not want to paste plethora of Judgement by the Apex Court and various High Courts wherein it is repeatedly held that right to free legal aid is a Constitutional Right of a person and is, therefore, Basic Structure of our Constitution. It is sufficient to state that the law is settled and a person shall get legal representation when there is no lawyer for him to present his case.

I do a lot of pro bono work and take utmost pride in presenting a case before a Judge in such a case. But, being told that an Accused official, who may ultimately succeed in getting acquittal and exoneration, cannot even arrange for a lawyer is only helping in a case where a honest person facing sponsored charges by vested interest may never get out of legal tangle and might not have his best case put forward.

I hope one of these days, Team Anna shall inform us what is the rationale for depriving someone of a Right which our Constitution gives.

God help us.

9 Comments

Filed under In Accordance With Law, Menace in Town, Official Bribe, Uncategorized

9 responses to “Why @Janlokpal Is AGAINST Free Legal Aid to Accused?

  1. A Very pertinent point here. Kejriwal’s intentions are unclear. Doesn’t think he is straightforward on this.

  2. Raghavan

    I concur every one should have a right to fair trail

  3. I agree to this post. At the same time I don’t bash Team Anna. Maybe Kejriwal’s point is why do we need to mention it in Lokpal bill…its anyway part of our legal system; you get a lawyer when you can’t pay for a lawyer. We even gave it to Kasab.

  4. PRASHANT RAJPUT

    IT IS UTTER RUBBISH TO LET ONE POINT OVERWHELM THE ENTIRE JANLOKPAL’S OBJECTIVES. NEEDLESS TO MENTION , THE WRITER SEEMS TO BE FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE BECAUSE A CORRUPT ACCUSE HAS MEANS TO CARRY OUT LEGAL BATTLE WAY BEYOND ANY DOUBT AND THOSE WHO ARE NOT THEY CAN ALSO ARRANGE IT BECAUSE THIS LAW IS ABOUT PUBLIC SERVANTS. IF FREE-LEGAL AID PROVISION IS CARVED OUT IN CONSTITUTION WHICH MEANS EACH INDIVIDUAL SHOULD BE PROVIDED WITH AS AND WHEN INDIVIDUAL REQUESTS FOR IT WHOEVER IS INSIDE THE JAIL WITHOUT ATTORNEY MUST BE EXONERATED AT ONCE. DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES ARE TO BE APPLIED ACCORDING TO THE RESOURCES NOT INTENTIONS.

  5. Prakriti Jaiswal

    Hey Dushyant, i happened to read this article on your blog and in my view its a very logical analysis and i share the same view.

    Great to know that at least the fellow lawyers are analysing the situation in the best possible manner.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s