Report No. 189
Right to 'access to Courts' includes right to legal aid and engaging counsel
Article 39-A was introduced in the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976 and it provides that "the State shall secure that the operation of the 24legal system promotes justice, on a basis of equal opportunity, and shall, in particular, provide free legal aid, by suitable legislation or schemes or in any other way, to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities".
We need not dilate here on the major strides made in the development of the jurisprudence surrounding the right to life under Article 21, particularly after the landmark decision in Maneka Gandhi. The linkage between Article 21 and the right to free legal aid was forged in the decision of Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 81 where the court was appalled at the plight of thousands of undertrials languishing in the jails in Bihar for years on end without ever being represented by a lawyer. The court declared that "there can be no doubt that speedy trial, and by speedy trial we mean reasonably expeditious trial, is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21."
The court pointed out that Article 39-A emphasised that free legal service was an inalienable element of 'reasonable, fair and just' procedure and that the right to free legal services was implicit in the guarantee of Article 21. In his inimitable style Justice Bhagwati declared: "legal aid is really nothing else but equal justice in action. Legal aid is in fact the delivery system of social justice. If free legal services are not provided to such an accused, the trial itself may run the risk of being vitiated as contravening Article 21 and we have no doubt that every State Government would try to avoid such a possible eventuality".
He reiterated this proposition in Suk Das v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh, (1986) 2 SCC 401 and said "It may therefore now be taken as settled law that free legal assistance at State cost is a fundamental right of a person accused of an offence which may involve jeopardy to his life or personal liberty and this fundamental right is implicit in the requirement of reasonable, fair and just procedure prescribed by Article 21." This part of the narration would be incomplete without referring to the other astute architect of human rights jurisprudence, Justice Krishna Iyer. In M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra, (1978) 3 SCC 544, he declared:
"If a prisoner sentenced to imprisonment is virtually unable to exercise his constitutional and statutory right of appeal inclusive of special leave to appeal for want of legal assistance, there is implicit in the Court under Article 142 read with Articles 21 and 39-A of the Constitution, power to assign counsel for such imprisoned individual 'for doing complete justice".