ABSTRACT
The case of Suk Das v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh [(1986) 2 SCC 401] is a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court of India on the fundamental right to free legal aid under Article 21 of the Constitution. It establishes that free legal assistance at state cost is a fundamental right of a person accused of an offence which may involve jeopardy to their personal liberty. This right is implicit in the right to fair procedure under Article 21.
- PRIMARY DETAILS OF THE CASE
Name of the Case: Suk Das & Anr v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh
Citation: (1986) 2 SCC 401
Date of Judgment: 10 March 1986
Bench: Chief Justice PN Bhagwati, Justice DP Madon & Justice GL Oza
- BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
In this case, the appellant Suk Das and 5 other accused were charged with threatening an Assistant Engineer under Sections 506 and 34 IPC. The appellant was unable to afford a lawyer due to poverty. The Additional Deputy Commissioner did not inform him of his right to free legal aid or provide him with a lawyer. As a result, he could not effectively defend himself and was convicted along with one other accused, while the rest were acquitted. His appeal to the Gauhati High Court was dismissed on grounds that he did not apply for free legal aid. This appeal followed in the Supreme Court.
- ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE CASE
I. Whether free legal assistance at state cost is a fundamental right under Article 21 of a person accused of an offence involving personal liberty?
II. Whether it is obligatory for the Court/Magistrate to inform such accused of this right suo motu?
III. If the accused is not so informed and consequently deprived of legal representation, does it vitiate the trial under Article 21?
- ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
Appellant:
- Free legal aid is part of right to fair trial under Article 21. State must provide lawyer to accused who can’t afford one where personal liberty is at stake.
- Courts must inform accused of this right, else it makes the right meaningless as they may not know. Failure to so inform violates Article 21.
Respondent:
- Appellant did not apply for legal aid. So failure to provide aid does not vitiate trial.
- LEGAL ASPECTS INVOLVED IN THE CASE
I. Whether the right to free legal aid for poor accused where liberty is at jeopardy is part of Article 21 right to fair trial?
II. Whether this right under Article 21 imposes suo motu duty on Courts to inform accused of this entitlement without necessitating a request?
III. If such information is not given, does trial violate Article 21?
- JUDGEMENT IN BRIEF
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and held:
I. Free legal aid at state cost is a fundamental right under Article 21 where offence involves personal liberty and accused cannot afford lawyer.
II. It would make the right meaningless if left to accused to ask for it. Most accused are unaware of their rights. Courts must inform accused of this right suo motu.
III. As appellant was not so informed in the present case, deprivation of legal aid violated Article 21. Conviction set aside.
- COMMENTARY
This landmark judgment makes the Article 21 right to free legal assistance real and effective. By placing burden on Courts to inform accused of availability of aid, it ensures that lack of legal awareness does not come in way of fair trial. It prevents violations based on mere technicality of accused not having applied for aid. Expanding Article 21 to make right to legal aid fundamental where liberty is at stake furthers access to justice.
- IMPORTANT CASES REFERRED
i) Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979)
ii) MH Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra (1978)
iii) Khatri v. State of Bihar (1981)
