The Delhi High Court has instructed the Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA) to establish a system for tracking the attendance of legal aid counsel in the cases they are assigned.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma issued the order after reviewing a case where a litigant's request for the registration of a criminal complaint was rejected by a trial court due to the absence of his legal aid counsel in three consecutive hearings.

The Court observed that such instances underscore the difficulties faced by marginalized individuals relying on the legal aid system.

"It raises concerns about whether sufficient safeguards are in place to protect the interests of such petitioners and ensure their right to effective legal representation. For an uneducated individual, who could not afford to hire a private lawyer, the appointment of a legal aid counsel is a significant source of hope … The justice system demands that a person entitled to the assistance of a counsel at State expense is not merely assigned a legal aid counsel in formality but is provided effective legal representation. Failing to do so defeats the constitutional promise of equality before law," Justice Sharma added.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma passed a detailed order after hearing a plea challenging the dismissal of a complaint by a trial court. The case involved a petitioner who, along with his wife, had allegedly received death threats, and their house was attacked by certain individuals in 2018. Despite the police’s failure to register the complaint, the petitioner approached the magistrate, seeking the registration of a First Information Report (FIR), but his plea was dismissed in May 2023. The matter was then posted for "pre-summoning evidence" on another date.

Since the petitioner could not afford a private lawyer, he was assigned a legal aid counsel by the Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA). However, this counsel failed to appear on three consecutive occasions, causing delays and ultimately leading to the dismissal of the complaint by the magistrate. The sessions court upheld the dismissal, attributing the failure to prosecute to the petitioner’s negligence. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner moved the High Court for relief.

The High Court criticized both the trial court and the sessions court for their lack of initiative and empathy in addressing the absence of the legal aid counsel. The Court emphasized that the judicial system must collectively ensure that procedural lapses or personal limitations do not hinder access to justice for vulnerable individuals. It underscored the shared responsibility of judges and legal authorities to prevent miscarriages of justice in cases involving legal aid.

In its ruling, the Court set aside the orders of the magistrate and the sessions court, restoring the complaint to its original stage for pre-summoning evidence. It also directed the DSLSA to promptly appoint a legal aid counsel for the petitioner and instructed the magistrate to conclude the pre-summoning evidence process within two months.

To prevent similar issues in the future, the Court issued specific directions to the DSLSA:

1. The DSLSA is to establish a mechanism to monitor the attendance of legal aid counsels in district courts and ensure they report their appearances to the concerned authorities.
2. The DSLSA must develop a framework to address instances where a legal aid counsel fails to appear for two consecutive hearings.
3. The DSLSA should consider creating a review or grievance redressal mechanism to allow litigants to report non-representation by legal aid counsels.
4. Judicial officers should be encouraged to promptly report cases where legal aid counsels fail to appear to the DSLSA.

Advocate Archit Upadhyay represented the petitioner, and Additional Public Prosecutor Rajkumar appeared for the State.