SUK DAS & ANR. versus UNION TERRITORY OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

Citation: [1986] 1 S.C.R. 590 · Decided: 10-03-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
590 
\ 
SUK DAS & ANR. 
v. 
UNION TERRITORY OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH 
MARCH 10, 1986 
[P,N, BHAGWATI, C.J., D.P. MADON AND G.L, OZA, JJ,] 
Constitution of India, Art. 21 - ·Accused on account of,_ 
poverty unable to afford legal representation - Duty of court 
to inform him that he can have a lawyer at State expense -
Effect of not providing legal representation to the accused at 
State cost - Whether vitiates trial. 
The appellant and five other accused were charged in the 
Court of Addl. 
Deputy Colllllissioner for an of fence under 
section 506 read with section 34 of 'the Indian Penal Code on 
the allegation that they threatened an Assistant Engineer of , 
the Central Public Works Department with a view to compelling ..
him to cancel the transfer orders of the accused which had 
been passed by him. The appellant was not represented by any 
lawyer since he was admittedly unable to afford legal 
representation on account of his poverty and the result was 
that he could not cross-examine some of the witnesses of the 
prosecution, At the end of the trial, four of the accused were 
acquitted but the appellant and another accused were convicted 
of the aforesaid offence and he was sentenced to undergo 
simple imprisonment for a period of two years. 
l 
The appellant thereupon preferred an appeal before the 
High Court contending that he was not provided free legal aid 
for his defence and the trial was, therefore, vitiated. The 
High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant on the 
ground that no application for legal aid was made by him 
before the Addl. Deputy Commissioner and therefore, it could 
not be said that failure to provide legal assistance vitiated 
the trial. 
the 
Allowing the appeal, 
I
HELD : (1) The conviction and sentence recorded against 
appellant is set aside and the order dismissing the 
SUK DAS v. UNION TERRITORY 
591 
·-•appellant from service passed on the basis of his conviction 
by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioer 1111st also be 
quashed. [597 C] 
A 
(2)(i) It is settled law that free legal assistance at 
State cost is a fundamental right of a person accused of an 
B 
offence which may involve jeopardy to his life of personal 
liberty and this fundamental 
right is implicit in the 
~ jrequirement of reasonable, fair and just procedure prescribed 
by Article 21. Of course, it 1111st be recognised that there msy 
be cases involving offences, such as economic offences or 
offences against law prohibiting prostitution or child abuse 
and the like, where social justice msy require that free legal 
C 
service msy not be provided by the State. [594 G-H] 
·' 
p. -
Bussainara lbatoon's case, [1979] 3 s.c.R. 
532 
& K.H. 
Boakot v. State of Maharashtra [1978] 3 s.c.c. 544 followed. 
(2)(11) 
The 
right 
to 
free 
legal 
service is 
a 
constitutional right of every accused person who is unable to 
engage a 
lawyer and secure legal service on account of 
reasons, 
such 
as, 
poverty, 
indigence 
or 
inclllllllllnicado 
situation and the State is under a mandate to provide a lawyer 
to an accused person if the circumstances of the case and the 
needs of the justice so require, provided, of course, the 
accused person does not object to the provision of such 
lawyer. It would make a mockery of legal aid if it were to be 
left to a poor ignorant and illiterate accused to ask for free 
~egal services. Legal aid would become merely a paper promise 
D 
E 
.. and it would fail of its purpose. [594 D-F; 595 G] 
Khatri & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors.' [1981] 2 s.C.R. 
408 referred to. 
In the instant case, the Additional Deputy Comnl.ssioner 
F 
did not inform the appellant 
that he was entitled to free 
legal assistance nor did he enquire from the appellant whether 
G 
.,.; -~ wanted a lawyer to be provided to him at State cost. The 
result was that the appellant remained unrepresented by a 
lawyer and the trial ultimately resulted in his conviction. 
This was clearly a violation of the fundamental right of the 
appellant under Article 21 and the trial 1111St accordingly be 
held to be vitiated on account of a fatal constitutions! 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
592 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[19861 i s.c.R. 
infirmity, and the conviction and sentence recorded against ,_, 
the appellant 1111St be set aside, (596 H; 597 A-B] 
(In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court 
directed that the appellant shall be reinstated in service, 
but he shall not be entitled to claim any back 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.