Cost of justice

Cost of justice

Reforms are needed to end the notion of legal aid to the poor meaning poor legal aid.

Does the ordinary citizen of the country have access to quality legal services when knocking at the doors of justice? Hardly, says Chief Justice of Odisha High Court S Muralidhar. Raising concern over the quality of legal aid available to the marginalised, he says the “lack of confidence in the legal aid lawyer is a reflection of the general approach to welfare services by the providers”. He insists that the system works “unequally” for the poor and the rich. The Justice is sounding a wake-up call. The entire exercise of a person seeking justice begins with hiring the services of a lawyer. The experience depends on the litigant’s ability to pay. As Justice Muralidhar points out, the poor do not get to complain if they get poor legal services because of the prevalent attitude that they cannot expect quality when the service is free. A complete overhaul of the legal aid system is long overdue. Last October, Justice UU Lalit of the Supreme Court also raised the issue, saying that legal aid to the poor “does not mean poor legal aid”. He wanted the lawyers to take the initiative to improve the standard of such aid. Both the Government and the judiciary should approach legal aid reforms by first introducing the general public to the concept of legal literacy. How many know that access to justice is a constitutional right? How many know that free legal aid is a Directive Principle because the State guarantees justice on the basis of equal opportunity for all?

A destitute person who cannot afford a lawyer is denied that equal opportunity until and unless legally assisted and for free. Over 80 per cent of Indians are eligible for subsidised legal aid. However, the number of legal aid lawyers is not more than a lakh or two. The per capita spending on legal aid is less than a rupee. In comparison, Australia spends `1748 and Argentina, `1292. Very few States allocate aid lawyers within a day. It takes over a month in a couple of States. The National Legal Services Authority is found wanting. It is true that over 15 million people have benefited from NALSA, but it suffers from several problems. The per capita availability of lawyers and legal assistants is pitiably low. The funds allotted are inadequate. The lawyers on the panel are not adequately compensated and that is the primary reason for inferior quality of service. These three issues need priority handling. Experienced and senior lawyers should be encouraged to take up legal aid work as that would encourage the juniors. Pro bono work should have weightage in promotions of lawyers to senior advocates or judges. Legal aid is not charity; it is an obligation. And legal literacy should one day empower the poor to demand the services of lawyers not just in courts but in police stations as well. That would be the day.