Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

15. In the case of Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secy., State of Bihar, Patna, , the Supreme Court considered Article 39A of the Constitution. This was considered from the point of view of free legal service as an unalienable element of 'reasonable, fair and just' procedure. Therein it has been observed that the right to free legal services is clearly an essential ingredient of 'reasonable, fair and just' procedure for a person accused of an offence and it must be held implicit in the guarantee of Article 21. It has been further observed that it is a constitutional right of every accused person who is unable to engage a lawyer and secure legal services on account of reasons such as poverty, indigence or incommunicado 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 justice so required. Article 39A of the Constitution is in Part IV pertaining to Directive Principles of State Policy. The first line of Article 39A is very important. According to that the State shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, on a basis of equal opportunity,... Thereafter there is the pronouncement about free legal aid by suitable legislation or schemes. But the first part of Article 39A clearly says that operation of the legal system must promote justice on a basis of equal opportunity. This is what we are endeavouring to emphasise. In the present case before us, prosecution has all the materials available to it to get the opinion of the handwriting expert on the strength of the enlarged photographs. If that is denied to the accused, can it be said that the operation of the legal system would promote justice on the basis of equal opportunity? In order to follow Article 39A in its true spirit, the opportunity must be equal to the accused as well as to the prosecution and if provisions like section 173(5) require the police or the State to give copies of the material documents to the accused, the accused cannot avail that opportunity properly, if the basis on which the prosecution based the opinion of the handwriting expert would not be available to the accused. As considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Hussainara Khatoon (supra) merely because an accused person cannot afford money, he should not be deprived of the opportunity for securing justice. The argument advanced by the State that the documents may be available to the accused for defence if he spends for getting the enlarged photographs can never be appreciated.