ABSTRACT
The case of Akhil Bandhu Saha v. The State of West Bengal & Others deals with the interpretation of the term “legal services” under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (LSA Act) and whether it includes bearing the expenses for travel and accommodation of an aided litigant to have effective access to justice. The Calcutta High Court delivered a detailed judgment examining the Constitutional provisions, purpose and object of the LSA Act as a beneficent legislation, and principles of interpretation. It held that in appropriate cases, legal services would include bearing minimum travel fare and accommodation expenses to enable the aided person to provide instructions and have access to the legal service advocate. However, it left the detailed policy formulation to the concerned authorities.
- PRIMARY DETAILS OF THE CASE
Name of the Case: Akhil Bandhu Saha v. The State of West Bengal & Others
Citation: AIR 2020 SC 232
Court: Calcutta High Court
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta
Decided on: 20th March 2014
- BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
The petitioner had invoked the writ jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court against the bank’s action under the SARFAESI Act relating to his property. His writ petition was dismissed earlier with liberty to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). He filed successive writ petitions which were also dismissed, and ultimately filed the present writ petition seeking relief including direction to the State Government to arrange for his travel fare and accommodation to enable him to attend the Supreme Court where a Special Leave Petition against the order was pending.[1]
The Court examined whether legal services under the LSA Act would include bearing expenses for travel and accommodation of an aided litigant to provide instructions and access to the legal service advocate.[2]
- ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE CASE
I. Whether legal services under Section 2(1)(c) of the LSA Act includes bearing minimum travel fare and accommodation expenses of an aided litigant to access the legal service advocate and justice delivery system?[3]
II. Whether legal services is restricted only to the specific modes under the relevant Regulations or has a wide connotation to achieve the object of access to justice?[4]
- ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
Petitioner’s Arguments:
- Term ‘legal services’ under LSA Act has to be interpreted liberally to fulfil the Constitutional mandate of access to justice under Article 39A.[5]
- ‘Any service’ shows wide meaning intended for legal services, not just representation in courts.[6]
- The relevant Regulations providing modes of legal services are not exhaustive.[7]
Legal Services Authorities’ Arguments:
- Legal services confined to conduct of case, does not include travel/accommodation expenses.[8]
- Regulations specifically provide that aided person must bear own expense for attendance.[9]
- Lack of resources to meet additional expenses if widely interpreted.[10]
- LEGAL ASPECTS INVOLVED
- Interpretation of a beneficent legislation like LSA Act[11]
- Understanding purpose and context of the term ‘legal services'[12]
- Achieving Constitutional goals and mandate of access to justice[13]
- Scope of subordinate legislation vis-a-vis principal legislation[14]
- Purposive interpretation to fulfil legislative object[15]
- JUDGEMENT IN BRIEF
The Court held that legal services under Section 2(1)(c) of the LSA Act has necessarily to be understood contextually and purposively. Given the Constitutional goals and obligation under Article 39A as well as LSA Act’s object, it would include bearing minimum travel fare and accommodation expenses to enable access to the legal service advocate in appropriate cases.[16] However, detailed guidelines have to be formulated by the concerned authorities to ensure only genuine aided persons receive this.[17]
- COMMENTARY
The judgement undertakes a comprehensive analysis of the concept of legal services under the LSA Act keeping in mind the legislation’s welfare objective as well as Constitutional vision of access to justice. By interpreting legal services to include ancillary expenses that facilitate access, the Court attempts to bridge the gap between law and reality so that guarantees on paper do not fail in practice. Although framing detailed guidelines is left to the authorities, the Court provides guidance on how policies must not lose sight of the problems of marginalised litigants. Overall, it progressive development of access to justice jurisprudence.
- IMPORTANT CASES REFERRED
- State of Maharashtra v. Manubhai Pragaji Vashi, (1995) 5 SCC 730[18]
- Manoharan v. Sivarajan, Civil Appeal No. 10581 of 2013[19]
- M/s. Girdhari Lal & Sons v. Balbir Nath Mathur, (1986) 2 SCC 237[20]
REFERENCES
[1] Akhil Bandhu Saha v. State of West Bengal, Para 4
[2] Id., Para 17
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Id., Para 11
[6] Id., Para 42
[7] Id., Para 53
[8] Id., Para 14
[9] Id., Para 59
[10] Id., Para 64
[11] Id., Paras 28-35
[12] Id., Paras 36-50
[13] Id., Paras 21-25
[14] Id., Para 53
[15] Id., Para 19
[16] Id., Para 68
[17] Id., Para 69
[18] Id., Para 22
[19] Id., Para 24
[20] Id., Para 19
