LexSHANKAR LAL SHARMA versus RAJESH KOOLWAL & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1717 : 2025 INSC 200 Shankar Lal Sharma v. Rajesh Koolwal & Ors. (Special Leave Petition (C) No. 17157 of 2022) 29 January 2025 [B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.] Issue for Consideration The role of advocates in taking up the responsibility of rendering assistance to both the court as well as the litigant, particularly those with limited means. Headnotes† Advocates – Responsibility of – Rendering assistance to indigent litigant: Held: Young advocates joining the bar, must volunteer to assist the litigants who cannot engage the services of a counsel due to lack of means or awareness whenever an opportunity presents itself – Moreover, they should render the best legal assistance to the litigant without any expectation in return for their professional services – By these gestures of volunteering to represent indigent litigants, advocates can collectively make a statement to the society at large that the legal profession stands for the right to have access to justice and equality before law, not just in theory but in practice too – Such efforts of advocates, though in an individual capacity but acting towards a common objective of bringing an amicable quietus to the litigation, would send out a message that counsel are not hinderances in the process of parties reaching a mutually agreeable settlement, particularly in labour and matrimonial matters – They can also effectively play their parts in helping the parties end their disputes, and add positively to the alternate dispute mechanisms like mediation and conciliation – These are opportunities to make meaningful contributions to the society, and as a result the legal profession as a whole would gain the goodwill of the society in general and indigent litigants in particular. [Para 13.3] Constitution of India – Right to justice – Role of advocates – Indigent litigant – Discussed. 1718 [2025] 1 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Constitution of India – Right to justice – Misconception needs to be broken: Held: Misconception amongst the litigant public that a hearing in this Court is available only to those who have the wherewithal needs to be broken – The duty to provide ease of access to justice rests upon every member of the legal profession and the requisite message needs to be disseminated from the portals and corridors of this Court in the first instance in both letter and spirit – The enduring service of the amicus curiae in the present case is a poignant step in that direction – The counsel has appeared fourteen times before this Court for representing the petitioner, during a period of two years when this matter was pending before this Court – The petitioner, admittedly being a man of limited means, has not been able to pay a penny to the counsel for his services – Yet, the counsel has dedicatedly appeared before this Court during these two years to not just represent the petitioner but also to assist this court in reaching a just and proper conclusion to this case. [Paras 14, 14.1 and 14.2] Case Law Cited State of UP v. UP State Law Officers Association [1994] 1 SCR 348 : AIR 1994 SC 1654 – referred to. List of Acts Constitution of India. List of Keywords Advocates; Indigent litigant; Right to Justice; Role of advocates; Amicus curiae; Legal profession; Mediation; Conciliation; Volunteering to represent indigent litigants. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 17157 of 2022 From the Judgment and Order dated 05.03.2022 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in DBSAW No. 182 of 2019 [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1719 Shankar Lal Sharma v. Rajesh Koolwal & Ors. Appearances for Parties Amicus Curiae. Advs. for the Respondents: Rajeev Singh, Radhakrishna S Hegde, Prakash Chandra Sharma. Petitioner-in-person. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Order This Special Leave Petition has been filed by Sri Shankar Lal Sharma - petitioner, who is present in-person before this Court today. 2. Having regard to the issues raised by him in this petition, we thought it fit to make available the services of a legal counsel and therefore, by order dated 18.11.2022 this Court requested Sri Sanchar Anand, learned Advocate, to assist this Court as an Amicus Curiae in the matter. 3. We have heard this case on several occasions. 4. We note that the age of the petitioner is presently 73 years. When we suggested to the petitioner to consider a full and final se
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.