NALSA Says It Doesn't Have Funds But Accommodates Judges In 5-Star Hotels For Conferences : Justice Dipankar Dutta

Speaking at a public event yesterday, Justice Dipankar Dutta of the Supreme Court highlighted the irony of the National Legal Services Authority accommodating judges in 5-star hotels for conferences while claiming that it did not have funds to bear the legal expenses of a poor litigant.

Justice Dutta was speaking in a discussion which preceded the inaugural AK Sen Memorial Lecture by Justice Surya Kant. He spoke in the context of the Legal Services Authority Act pioneered by AK Sen. 

Sharing an incident, he said: "About a decade back, while I was a judge of the Calcutta High Court, a member of the Scheduled Caste community, who was entitled to free legal aid, approached me with a writ petition. His prayer was, he told me I have been involved in litigation for last ten years and the secured creditor has taken over my property under the SARFASI Act. I have been fighting litigation which has drained my financial resources. Ultimately, I have succeeded before the division bench and the secured creditor in the Supreme Court. I have been issued notice and I want to defend my case in person.

But Supreme Court being Supreme Court, I may not be in position to support my case. So, I approached State Legal Services Authority with my request that I don't have money to go to Delhi and get a lawyer. Why should the State Legal Services Authority bear by travel and accommodation expenses? He filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus."

Justice Datta added that since he found the litigant lacking legal knowledge, he appointed an amicus. He said: "The amicus argued very-well...He took me to the definition of legal services and I found that legal services include service of any kind."

"I ultimately ruled that Legal Services Authority Act is not to only guarantee equality to marginalised section only on paper. It has to be reality. Otherwise it would largely a mirage..."

Justice Datta said that he faced opposition for the ruling.  "I had opposition from everywhere...they said we don't have funds to bear his [litigant's] expenses."

Adding to this, he remarked: "10 years down the line, when I attend NALSA conferences, I find, oh my god, where does the money come from? Five-six judges from the High Courts are invited, and we are accommodated in five-star hotels. Is this the purpose for which the Legal Services Authority Act was enacted?"

On Sen, Justice Datta said: "What Nani Phalkiwala is to Bombay, Sen was to Calcutta."

Justice Datta also briefly spoke on the quality of free legal aid. To this, Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethamalani added: "Former Chief Justice U.U. Lalit in Karnataka gave a speech where he said, legal aid for the poor does not mean poor legal aid. I think its time now we make it mandatory for all senior advocates to do one trial, civil or criminal and one appeal every year. It should be made mandatory."

Adding to this, the moderator for the event Arghya Sengupta, highlighted that we spent 190 crores per year which amounts to 0.75 paise per capita. This was the data from two years back. As per official stats, only 15 million people have taken legal aid for 33 years. 

He also remarked that the issue flagged by Justice Datta needs to be introspected because the Legal Services Authority Act was enacted with a lot of promises. 

Justice Datta also suggested that to ensure continuity, judges who have at least three years in the parent High Court should be appointed as executive chairman of the State Legal Services Authority. 

He said: "There is a judgment in the Supreme Court in Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association in 2007 which deprecated the practice of High Court appointing retired judges as the executive chairman. Supreme Court said that only sitting judges should be executive chairman. What is happening is that, it is either the senior most pusine judge or second senior most who is appointed as executive chairman. Being senior judges, they are elevated within 6 months to 1 year. If anyone has original idea, it cannot be translated into action. Any judge who is fairly senior but has at least 3 years in Parent High Court, should be appointed as executive chairman."

Former judge of the Supreme Court, Indira Banerjee; Senior Advocates Mahesh Jethamalani, and Sanjiv Sen were also a part of the discussion moderated by Arghya Sengupta. 

The event can be watched here.