Observing that litigants should not be denied access to justice based upon their economic capacity, the Bombay High Court has pulled up an advocate on the panel of legal aid cell.
Justice Mahesh Sonak, sitting at the Goa bench of the HC, early this month, rapped the advocate of the Goa State Legal Service Authority (GSLSA) for repeatedly failing to appear for a litigant because of his other commitments.
“Access to justice can never be denied to the litigant based upon their economic capacity. Therefore, greater responsibility is placed on those who appear under the legal aid scheme,” observed Justice Sonak.
Litigants financial condition should not be a concern
The judge also urged the lawyers to give priority to matters under the legal aid scheme though the “fees they are paid for such matters may not be commensurate to the fees they earn in other matters.”
“The litigants should not get the impression that quality legal services are not provided to them merely because they cannot pay substantial fees to the advocates,” the court added.
The case which led to Bombay HC's statement
In the present case, the litigant, one Pravin Naik and his lawyer, appointed through legal aid, believed that the presiding officer in the case would be biased and kept seeking adjournments.
Hence, in October 2019, the presiding officer dismissed Naik’s appeal. Naik challenged this before the HC.
Justice Sonak observed that whenever a matter is accepted under the legal aid scheme, the appointed advocate must diligently attend to it. “The excuse of being engaged in some other court should not be put forth; in any case, it should not be continuously put forth,” he added.
Besides, the judge advised advocates in general not to unnecessarily involve themselves in levelling allegations of bias against presiding officers unless the situation clearly warrants it and the facts support such a course. “They must attend to the case and conduct it to the best of their ability,” the court added.
The HC restored Naik’s appeal before the civil court while imposing a cost of Rs 10,000 payable to the respondent.
