RAJOO @ RAMAKANT versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2012] 6 S.C.R. 1182 · Decided: 09-08-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. PATNAIK · Disposal: Remitted to Lower Court
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2012] 6 S.C.R. 1182 
RAJOO @ RAMAKANT 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
(Criminal Appeal No. 140 of 2008) 
AUGUST 9, 2012 
[A.K. PATNAIK AND MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 39-A!Legal Services 
Authorities Act, 1987 - ss. 12 and 13 - Right to legal 
C representation - Of the accused - At appellate stage -
Entitlement - Held: Article 39-A as well as the Act provides 
for free legal aid - An eligible person is entitled to legal 
services at any stage of the proceedings either trial or 
appellate - In the instant case, the accused was not provided 
D legal representation and the High Court failed to enquire as 
to whether the accused required legal assistance - Matter 
required (o be re-heard by High Court after providing the 
accused opportunity of obtaining legal representation -
Hence, remitted to High Court for fresh hearing. 
E 
F 
The question which was determined in the present 
appeal was whether the appellant-accused was 
entitled,as a matter of right,to legal representation in the 
High Court. 
Disposing of the appeal, and remitting the matter to 
High Court, the Court 
HELD: 1. By the 42nd Amendment to the 
Constitution, effected in 1977, Article 39-A was inserted. 
G This Article provides for free legal aid by suitable 
legislation or schemes or in any other manner, to ensure 
that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to 
any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities. 
Subsequently, with the intention of providing free legal 
H 
1182 
RAJOO@ RAMAKANT v. STATE OF MADHYA 
1183 
PRADESH 
aid, the Central Government resolved (on 26th 
A 
September, 1980) and appointed the "Committee for 
Implementing the. Legal Aid Schemes". This committee 
was to monitor and implement legal aid programs on a 
uniform basis throughout the country in fulfillment of the 
constitutional mandate. Eventually the Legal Services 
B 
Authorities Act, 1987 was enacted. The Act provides, inter 
alia for the constitution of a National Legal Services 
Authority, a Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, 
State Legal Services Authorities as well as Taluk Legal 
Services Committees. Section 12 of the Act lays down the c 
criteria for providing legal services. It provides, inter alia, 
that every person who has to file or defend a case shall 
be entitled to legal services, if he or she is in custody. 
Section 13 of the Act provides that persons meeting the 
criteria laid down in Section 12 of the Act will be entitled 
D 
to legal services provided the concerned authority is 
satisfied that such person has a prima facie case to 
prosecute or defend. (Paras 5, 6,7 and 8] (1185-G-H; 1186-
A, D-G] 
2. Neither the· Constitution nor the Legal Services 
E 
Authorities Act makes any distinction between a trial and 
an appeal for the purposes of providing free legal aid to 
an accused or a person in custody. An eligible person is 
-entitled to legal services at any stage of the proceedings 
which he or she is prosecuting or defending. The 
F 
Supreme Court Legal Services Committee provides legal 
assistance to eligible persons in this Court. This makes 
it abundantly clear that legal services shall be provided 
to an eligible person at all stages of the proceedings, trial 
as well as appellate. It is also important to note that in 
G 
view of the constitutional mandate of Article 39-A, legal 
services or legal aid is provided to an eligible person free 
of cost. [Paras 21 and 9] (1191-A; 1187-A-C] 
3. The High Court was under an obligation to enquire 
from the appellant-accused whether he required legal 
H 
1184 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012) 6 S.C.R. 
A assistance and if he did, it should have been provided to 
him at State expense. However, since the record of the 
case does not indicate any such endeavour having been 
made by the High Court, this case ought to be re-heard 
by the High Court after providing the appellant-accused 
~ an opportunity of obtaining legal representation. The 
case records are remitted back to the High Court for a 
fresh hearing. [Paras 21 and 22] [1191-8-D] 
Hussainara Khatoon (IV) v. Home Secretary, State of 
Bihar (1980) 1SCC 98: 1979 (3) SCR 532; Khatri(//) v. State 
C of Bihar (1981) 1 SCC 627: 1981 (2) SCR 408; Suk Das v. 
Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh (1986) 2 SCC 401: 
1986 (1) SCR 590- relied on. 
Clark v. Registrar of the Manukau District Court (2012) 
D NZCA 193;Condon v. R (2006) NZSC 62; Dietrich v. R 1992 
HCA 57 - referred to. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Case Law R
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.