ABSTRACT
The case of Khatri and Others v. State of Bihar and Others ((1981) 1 SCC 627) revolved around the constitutional right to free legal aid under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court declared that free legal services is an essential ingredient of the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21. It chastised the State of Bihar for failing to provide legal representation to poor and illiterate undertrials, despite the Court’s earlier judgment in Hussainara Khatoon v State of Bihar.
- PRIMARY DETAILS OF THE CASE
Name of the Case: Khatri and Others v. State of Bihar and Others
Citation: (1981) 1 SCC 627
Date of Judgment: 19 December 1980
Bench: Justice P.N. Bhagwati and Justice A.P. Sen
- BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
In 1979, several undertrial prisoners lodged in Bhagalpur Central Jail, Bihar had their eyes blinded by the police officials, allegedly to prevent them from identifying the police personnel [1]. Habeas corpus petitions were filed in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution by and on behalf of these blinded prisoners (called ‘Khatri’ and ‘Others’) against the State of Bihar and others.
The State filed counter-affidavits giving details about the blinded prisoners as required by the Court. It was revealed that most blinded prisoners were unrepresented and were not provided free legal aid, despite the Court’s ruling in Hussainara Khatoon case in 1979, as they had not asked for it. The judicial magistrates had also not informed them about the availability of free legal services [2].
- ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE CASE
A) Whether free legal aid is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution?
B) At what stages should the State provide free legal aid to the accused persons?
C) Whether the State can avoid its obligation to provide legal aid on grounds of financial constraints?
D) Whether the magistrate is duty-bound to inform the accused about availability of free legal aid?
- ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
Petitioners:
A) Right to free legal aid is essential for fair procedure under Article 21. State must provide a lawyer if required in the interests of justice, irrespective of accused’s poverty [3].
B) Obligation to provide legal aid arises when accused is first produced before magistrate and also at bail stage. Denial at these stages violates Article 21 [4].
C) Poverty no excuse to avoid constitutional duty to provide legal aid. State must do whatever is required [5].
D) Legal aid meaningless unless magistrate informs accused about it. People are mostly illiterate about their rights [6].
State of Bihar:
A) Admitted legal aid necessary under Article 21 in light of Court’s ruling. But State may find it difficult due to financial constraints [7].
B) Investigation still underway. Not yet clear police blinded prisoners. Compensation claim untenable now [8].
- LEGAL ASPECTS INVOLVED IN THE CASE
A) Scope of ‘right to life and personal liberty’ under Article 21
B) State’s obligations under Article 21
C) Role of judiciary in expanding scope of fundamental rights
D) Concept of ‘procedure established by law’ under Article 21
E) Right of undertrials and other accused persons
F) Constitutional remedies for violation of fundamental rights
- JUDGEMENT IN BRIEF
A) Right to free legal services is fundamental right under Article 21. State must provide lawyer to accused if required for fair trial [9].
B) Obligation to provide legal services arises when accused first produced before magistrate and also during remand. This is vital stage [10].
C) Poverty no ground to deny legal aid. State must provide services irrespective of financial constraints [11].
D) Magistrate must inform accused about availability of free legal aid. People are mostly unaware of their rights [12].
E) Constitutional duties under Article 21 cannot be avoided citing financial inability [13].
F) 24 hours arrest-production rule must be followed scrupulously [14].
G) Blinded prisoners to be housed outside Bhagalpur jail till next hearing [15].
H) Arguments on compensation for Article 21 violation deferred till next hearing [16].
- COMMENTARY
By holding that Article 21 embodies the right to free legal services, the Court expanded the scope of fundamental rights. It adopted a creative interpretation of Article 21, building on its earlier landmark judgments. The case is a milestone in criminal jurisprudence regarding rights of the accused, especially poor and marginalized sections. It laid down procedural safeguards like mandatory disclosure of availability of legal aid. The judgment promoted access to justice and equality before law. Its directions continue to serve as guiding principles.
However, the actual impact in improving legal aid has been mixed. The majority of underprivileged undertrials still remain unaware of their legal rights. The free legal aid system suffers from lack of funds, proper management and quality lawyers [17]. But the judgment has inspired civil society and lawyers to provide pro bono legal services as well as the later enactment of legislation like Legal Services Authorities Act 1987.
- IMPORTANT CASES REFERRED
Hussainara Khatoon v State of Bihar, (1979) 3 SCR 532
Rhem v Malcolm, 377 F Supp. 995
Jackson v Bishop, 404 F Supp 2d 571
REFERENCES
[1] Para 1, Khatri v State of Bihar (1981)
[2] Paras 3 and 4, Khatri v State of Bihar (1981)
[3] Para 2, Khatri v State of Bihar (1981)
[4] Para 3, Khatri v State of Bihar (1981)
[5] Para 5, Khatri v State of Bihar (1981)
[6] Para 7, Khatri v State of Bihar (1981)
[7] Para 5, Khatri v State of Bihar (1981)
[8] Para 2, Khatri v State of Bihar (1981)
[9] Para 4, Khatri v State of Bihar (1981)
[10] Para 6, Khatri v State of Bihar (1981)
[11] Para 5, Khatri v State of Bihar (1981)
[12] Para 7, Khatri v State of Bihar (1981)
[13] Para 5, Khatri v State of Bihar (1981)
[14] Para 10, Khatri v State of Bihar (1981)
[15] Para 1, Khatri v State of Bihar (1981)
[16] Para 2, Khatri v State of Bihar (1981)
[17] Accountability Initiative, Legal Aid in India – A Study of the Challenges and the Way Forward (2019).
