Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (1.05 seconds)
Documents citing Khatri And Ors. vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 14 January, 1981

Naval Dey Bharti vs State Of U.P. And Another on 25 July, 2019

It is well settled by the Apex Court in Khatri and others Vs. State of Bihar and others 1981 (1) SCC 627, Mrs. Veena Sethi Vs. State of Bihar and others AIR 1983 SC 339, Rudal Shah Vs. State of Bihar and another AIR 1983 SC 1086, Bhim Singh Vs. State of Jammu Kashmir and others 1985 (4) SCC 677, Sant Bir Vs. State of Bihar AIR 1982 SC 1470 that Constitutional Courts can award compensation for violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of India.
Allahabad High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 3 - S K Singh - Full Document

Sunil vs State on 5 January, 2023

21. It has been held in the case of Khatri (2) v. State of Bihar (1981) 1 SCC 627 that "legal aid would become merely a fake promise and it would fail of its purpose, if it were to be left to a poor ignorant and illiterate accused to ask a for free legal services. The Magistrate or the Sessions Judge before whom the accused appears must be held to be under an obligation to inform the accused that if he is unable to engage the services of a lawyer on account of poverty or indigence, he is entitled to obtain free legal services at the cost of the State."
Delhi High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - S K Sharma - Full Document

Babloo Chauhan @ Dabloo vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 30 November, 2017

12. As far as India is concerned, there is no exclusive legislation on the topic. The decisions in Khatri v. State of Bihar (1981) 1 SCC 627; Veena Sethi v. State of Bihar AIR 1983 SC 339; Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar AIR 1983 SC 1086; Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir (1985) 4 SCC 677 and Sant Bir v. State of Bihar AIR 1982 SC 1470, are instances where Crl A 157 of 2013 Page 9 of 12 the Supreme Court has held that compensation can be awarded by constitutional courts for violation of fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. These have included instances of compensation being awarded to those wrongly incarcerated as well. But these are episodic and are not easily available to all similarly situated persons.
Delhi High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 1 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

Rakesh vs State Of U.P. on 18 May, 2018

In Khatri (2) v. State of Bihar [(1981) 1 SCC 627 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 228] this Court has held: (SCC pp. 630-32, paras 5-6) "5. That takes us to one other important issue which arises in this case. It is clear from the particulars supplied by the State from the records of the various Judicial Magistrates dealing with the blinded prisoners from time to time that, neither at the time when the blinded prisoners were produced for the first time before the Judicial Magistrate nor at the time when the remand orders were passed, was any legal representation available to most of the blinded prisoners. The records of the Judicial Magistrates show that no legal representation was provided to the blinded prisoners, because none of them asked for it nor did the Judicial Magistrates enquire from the blinded prisoners produced before them either initially or at the time of remand whether they wanted any legal representation at State cost. The only excuse for not providing legal representation to the blinded prisoners at the cost of the State was that none of the blinded prisoners asked for it. The result was that barring two or three blinded prisoners who managed to get a lawyer to represent them at the later stages of remand, most of the blinded prisoners were not represented by any lawyers and save a few who were released on bail, and that too after being in jail for quite some time, the rest of them continued to languish in jail. It is difficult to understand how this state of affairs could be permitted to continue despite the decision of this Court in Hussainara Khatoon (4) case [(1980) 1 SCC 98 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 40] . This Court has pointed out in Hussainara Khatoon (4) case [(1980) 1 SCC 98 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 40] which was decided as far back as 9-3-1979 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 and the State is under a constitutional mandate to provide a lawyer to an accused person if the circumstances of the case and the needs of justice so require, provided of course the accused person does not object to the provision of such lawyer. It is unfortunate that though this Court declared the right to legal aid as a fundamental right of an accused person by a process of judicial construction of Article 21, most of the States in the country have not taken note of this decision and provided free legal services to a person accused of an offence. We regret this disregard of the decision of the highest court in the land by many of the States despite the constitutional declaration in Article 141 that the law declared by this Court shall be binding throughout the territory of India. Mr K.G. Bhagat on behalf of the State agreed that in view of the decision of this Court the State was bound to provide free legal services to an indigent accused but he suggested that the State might find it difficult to do so owing to financial constraints. We may point out to the State of Bihar that it cannot avoid its constitutional obligation to provide free legal services to a poor accused by pleading financial or administrative inability. The State is under a constitutional mandate to provide free legal aid to an accused person who is unable to secure legal services on account of indigence and whatever is necessary for this purpose has to be done by the State.
Allahabad High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - V Lakshmi - Full Document

Muhammed Nashif U vs State Of Kerala on 21 November, 2025

In Khatri and others (11) v. State of Bihar and others [(1981) 1 SCC 627], the Hon'ble Supreme Court, speaking through Justice P.N. Bhagwati (as he then was), raised the questions whether the court can injunct the State from depriving a person of his life or personal liberty; that the court was helpless to grant relief to the person who has suffered such deprivation; and that why the courts shouldn't be prepared to forge new tools and devise new remedies for the purpose of vindicating the most precious of the precious fundamental right to life and personal liberty? The Court answered the above questions by explicitly directing the State and its police authorities to scrupulously observe the constitutional and legal requirement to produce an arrested person before a Judicial Magistrate within twenty-four hours of the arrest.
Kerala High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - C S Dias - Full Document
1   2 Next