RIGHT TO LEGAL AID CASE LAWS

Sr. Case Name Citation Description

No.
This case involved a special leave petition to appeal
Madhav Hayawadanrao (1978) 3 SCC 544 against the three-year sentence imposed by the High
1. Hoskot vs State of Court in a case of cheating. The Supreme Court
Maharashtra addressed two issues it found emerged from the facts of
the case: lenient sentencing in economic offences and the
right to appeal. While discussing the latter, the court held
there was a Constitutional right to legal aid. The court
found that free legal services at the trial court and
appellate levels, where deprivation of life or personal
liberty is at stake, are a necessary component of
procedural justice.
This was a Public Interest Litigation filed in response to
Sheela Barse vs State of (1978) 3 SCC 544 the custodial violence against female prisoners in
2. Maharashtra Bombay. The Supreme Court issued directions on the
need to provide legal assistance to all prisoners lodged in
jails in Maharashtra. The court reiterated the
constitutional imperative of providing legal aid to poor
accused that face deprivation of life or personal liberty.
It emphasised the importance of this right to restore faith
in the justice system, to protect rights of prisoners
against torture and ill-treatment and especially when
their incarceration may prevent access to legal
assistance.
This was a case of gang rape where the appellant was
3. Rajoo @ Ramakant vs State (2012) 8 SCC 553 sentenced to 10 years imprisonment, and he was
of M. P unrepresented in the appeal before the High Court.
A criminal appeal was filed before the Supreme Court.
The primary question discussed is the right to legal
representation at the appellate stage. The court noted that
there is no distinction in the Constitution of India, 1950
or the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 between a trial
and an appeal for the purposes of providing free legal aid
to an accused or a person in custody. An eligible person
is entitled to legal services at any stage of the
proceedings which he or she is prosecuting or defending.
Therefore, the High Court was obligated to enquire
whether he required legal assistance, and if he did, to
provide it to him at State expense.
This was a Public Interest Litigation filed regarding the
Hussainara Khatoon v. Home (1980) 1 SCC 98 rights of undertrial prisoners and the administration of
4. Secretary, State of Bihar prisons in Bihar. The Supreme Court held that legal
services are an essential ingredient of just, fair and
reasonable procedure under Article 21. The court held
that it is the constitutional right of every accused person
who is unable to engage a lawyer on account of reasons
such as poverty, indigence or incommunicado situation
to have a lawyer provided by the State if the
circumstances of the case and the needs of justice so
 required.
This was an appeal against a two-year imprisonment for
Suk Das v. Union Territory (1986) 2 SCC 401 criminal intimidation where the accused was
5. of Arunachal Pradesh unrepresented for the trial and did not make an
application for legal aid. The question in this case was
whether the fundamental right to legal assistance at state
cost could be denied if he did not apply for free legal aid.
The Supreme Court reiterated the holding of Khatri and
Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. that the magistrate is
under an obligation to inform the accused of his right to
free legal services if he cannot engage a lawyer because
of poverty.
This was an appeal against a death sentence for the
Mohammed Ajmal (2012) 9 SCC 1 offence of terrorism. The Supreme Court reiterated that
6. Mohammad Amir Kasab and the right to access legal aid arises when a person arrested
Ors. v. State of Maharashtra in connection with a cognisable offence is first produced
before a magistrate. However, the court held that while
failure to provide a lawyer at the commencement of the
trial would vitiate the trial and the resultant conviction
and sentence, failure to provide a lawyer at the pre-trial
stage may not have the same consequence. The accused
may have the right to claim compensation against the
State, but the trial is not vitiated unless it is shown that
this failure resulted in material prejudice to the accused
during the trial.
This was a Public Interest Litigation filed regarding the
Khatri and Ors. v. State of (1981) 1 SCC 627 blinding of prisoners in Bihar. While discussing the right
7. Bihar and Ors. of these prisoners to compensation, the Supreme Court
noted the absence of legal representation to these
prisoners when they were produced before the
magistrate, where they neither requested it nor did the
magistrate enquire if they desired legal representation at
state cost. The court criticised the failure of lower courts
to follow the binding decision of the Supreme Court in
Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar
and ensure the constitutional right to legal
representation. It also pointed out that the State cannot
avoid its constitutional obligation to provide free legal
services to an indigent accused by pleading financial or
administrative inability.
This was an appeal against a death sentence in a case of
Mohd. Hussain v. The State AIR 2012 SC 750 a bomb blast on a bus. The Supreme Court found that the
8. (Govt. of NCT) Delhi legal aid counsel appointed failed to appear for much of
the trial and failed to cross-examine multiple witnesses
against the accused. The court noted that the Sessions
Judge did not ask the accused whether he was able to
appoint counsel or wished to have counsel appointed.
The representation provided was such that it was a denial
of effective and substantial assistance of counsel and was
found to be a violation of the right to due process and a
fair trial.
This was an appeal against a death sentence by a prisoner
Anokhilal v. State of Madhya AIR 2020 SC 232 from Madhya Pradesh in a case of rape and murder of a
9. Pradesh minor. The Supreme Court found that the amicus curiae
in this case was not given sufficient time to prepare,
which was a denial of the right to legal aid, since it could
not be said to be real and meaningful. The court set aside
the conviction and sentence and directed for de novo
consideration of the case. The court then laid down
norms to prevent such a situation from emerging again:
in cases where there is a possibility of life sentence or
death sentence, advocates with minimum 10 years’
experience alone should be appointed as legal aid
counsel