LEGAL AID

TOPIC: PRO - BONO ADVOCACY

 MAIN BODY
Laws were made from the beginning of the independent nation and the constitution with the
welfare of the citizens in mind. Economic, social, and political justice are all mentioned in the
preamble. Knocking on the doors of the court is one of the most commonly used methods for
obtaining justice. Everyone comes to the court to have their complaints heard. The argument
is that wealthy people have resources and can afford to hire a good lawyer, but will a person
with insufficient resources, or a person who has lost everything in a natural disaster, or an
insane person, or a child who cannot afford a lawyer, approach the court? This thought has
been addressed, and provisions have been made in this regard, like :

 According to Article 39A of the Indian Constitution, "the State shall ensure that the
operation of the legal system promotes justice on a basis of equal opportunity, and
shall, in particular, provide free legal aid, by appropriate 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."
 The judiciary's power of interpretation allowed the 'Right to Free Legal Aid' to be
included under Article 21.
 In addition, Article 14 guarantees equality before the law. If this equality is not
provided in procedural aspects, it is a violation of a fundamental right.

Unrepresented accused in court proceedings is a complete violation of his fundamental rights.

Not only the constitution, but also Section 304 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
stipulates that legal assistance must be provided at the state's expense.

The Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (LSA) was enacted in response to Article 39A to
provide a proper set of laws for the establishment of authorities dedicated solely to providing
free legal assistance to those who qualify under Section 12 of the act. In 1995, the National
Legal Service Authority (NALSA) was established in the same vein as the LSA. However,
when these theories are put into practise, the quality of legal aid provided to the poor suffers.
According to a report published by the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI), the
country has 61,593 panel lawyers, which translates to one legal aid lawyer for every 18,609
people or five legal aid lawyers for every 100,000 people. According to the report, 22.6
percent of the beneficiaries said they would not use free legal aid services a second time. The
study also discovered that 60% of women who were aware of free legal aid services chose to
hire a private lawyer because they felt they had more control over their lawyer.
Apart from taking steps to improve the current state of free legal aid, the country requires
more pro-bono work from more lawyers and law firms. Just as a corporation has a legal
obligation to fulfil its corporate social responsibility, advocates and their offices must have a
legal obligation to serve their constituents and provide quality representation. A person or an
office will not only work towards society if a law is enacted and enforced with sanctions. The
stakeholders in this profession should not wait for a specific law to be passed before
advocating for and allocating their energy and resources to those in need. The lack of pro
bono legal services adds to the Indian public's scepticism of the judiciary. Because the
judiciary treats the plight of the poor and wealthy equally, the agents of the judiciary,
lawyers, should work with equity to represent those who lack the financial means to hire
high-profile lawyers.

Giving a beggar alms may provide him with a one-time meal, but obtaining justice for the
same unfortunate by representing him will enable him to earn his meal. When a lawyer
dismisses pro bono as a fruitless and futile effort because it will not earn him money, it
becomes a question of ideals. Charity is done out of compassion, but when a lawyer does
charity but does not work pro bono, it is hypocritical. The privilege of becoming a lawyer is
only justified when we work on a cause that is close to our hearts and improve society.
Working on pro bono cases entails far more than a person's responsibility and duty to the
profession and the client. The world lacks empathy, and this is also true of India and pro bono
work. The seed is sown in law schools that lawyers work hard to make a good living. A
change is required in the basic concept. It is necessary to cultivate the willingness, intention,
and noble ideals to work for the common good. For any new lawyer, pro bono is a blessing in
disguise. Despite the fact that the fee is not the most rewarding aspect of a case, it is the
learning and experience that adds to a lawyer's existing skills. Working pro bono gives a
young lawyer a realistic picture of not only the Indian judicial system, but also of the citizens
and what they expect from the legal system. It broadens the scope of the law and leads to
professional development for individuals, as well as a sense of accomplishment that they are
contributing to society.

Not as a lawyer, but as a human being, a man's morality should compel him to represent the
unfortunate. Even the bar council considers pro-bono work to be a legal obligation, but it is a
moral obligation, and we live in an age where morality is irrelevant. No lawyer will develop
this morality unless it is backed by sanctions. Unlike New York, where 50 hours of pro bono
service are required to enter the bar, in Los Angeles, there is no such requirement. As a result,
in New York, even the free legal aid provided is of top-notch credibility, as a person must
qualify only if he or she works under the supervision of an attorney, judge, or law school
faculty or instructor. India is lacking in this area. The need for pro-bono work is emphasised
because more than half of the prison population is under-represented. The stigma attached to
being a prisoner adds to the underrepresentation of prisoners. Before the trial, the convict is
judged guilty by society, and the lawyer assigned to him works half-heartedly as well. The
convict's family places a greater trust in the lawyer than in God, and considers him to be
equal to God. But how does it hold up when incompetence results in the death penalty, life
imprisonment, or years of incarceration for which he or she did not deserve to be behind bars
but were not?

Everyone is entitled to legal assistance. Even Afzal Guru, who had been sentenced to death,
had the right to an attorney. He was, however, denied even a semblance of his right to
effective legal representation. With no legal training, Afzal had no choice but to cross-
examine 80 prosecution witnesses on his own and withstand the onslaught of a phalanx of the
government's best lawyers, all of whom were determined to prove him as one of the terror
attack's masterminds. This is because the two legal-aid lawyers assigned to his defence not
only left him to fend for himself, but also argued against him in court during the trial. In this
case, justice was not served.

"Article 39A emphasises that free legal service is an inalienable element of'reasonable, fair,
and just' procedure; for without it, a person suffering from economic or other disabilities
would be deprived of the opportunity to secure justice," writes Justice P.N. Bhagwati. As a
result, the right to free legal services is clearly an essential component of a'reasonable, fair,
and just' procedure for a person accused of an offence, and it must be held implicit in Article
21's guarantee." has lost its impact, significance, and virtue.

India is ranked 163rd out of 190 countries in terms of enforcing contracts, which includes the
quality of the judicial process, according to a World Bank report. The issues of a lack of
judges and lawyers are widely discussed, but another important cause is pending cases due to
inefficient lawyers. Lawyers requested more time in 91 percent of delayed cases, compared to
a much lower 36 percent in cases that were resolved on time.