In its report titled ‘Quality of Legal Representation: An Empirical Analysis of Free Legal Aid Services in India’, the National Law University, Delhi (NLUD) reveals a significant lack of faith in the services provided by legal aid counsel (LAC) under the free legal aid system. The majority of citizens entitled to these services see them as a last resort, only seeking help when they cannot afford a private lawyer.
The Establishment of the Legal Services Authorities (LSA) Act
Free legal services were institutionalized in 1987 through the LSA Act. This act was designed to provide competent, cost-free legal services to the less privileged. It led to the formation of the National Legal Service Authority (NALSA) and other state-level legal service institutions. These services are available to members of Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes, women, children, victims of human trafficking, differently-abled individuals, industrial workers, individuals in protective custody, and the economically disadvantaged.
Lawyer Availability in India: Key Facts
The Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative’s (CHRI) report shows that India has a better per capita lawyer ratio than most countries worldwide. India is home to approximately 1.8 million lawyers, equating to one lawyer for every 736 people. There are 61,593 panel lawyers across the country, translating to one legal aid lawyer per 18,609 population or five legal aid lawyers per 100,000 population. According to NALSA, about 8.22 lakh people throughout India benefited from legal aid services from April 2017 to June 2018.
“`html
| Fact | Value |
|---|---|
| Per Capita Lawyer Ratio | 1 lawyer per 736 people |
| Total Panel Lawyers | 61,593 |
| Beneficiary of Legal Aid Services (April ’17 – June ’18) | 8.22 lakh people |
“`
Key Findings from the Report
The NLUD report illuminates several trends and issues surrounding the legal aid system’s perception and effectiveness. Crucially, about 75% of beneficiaries responded that they opted for free legal aid solely because they lacked the means to hire a private practitioner. 22.6% of these beneficiaries expressed that they would not utilize free legal aid services a second time.
Out of all the women aware of the free legal aid services, 60% preferred seeking assistance from a private legal practitioner, citing more control over their lawyer and overall lack of faith in the legal aid system’s quality. Interestingly, the LAC’s commitment to the legal aid cases is significantly low; with 56% of them spending an average of only 1 to 10 hours per week on legal aid cases, contrasted with 58% devoting 20 hours or more weekly on private cases.
Moreover, about a third of judicial officers reported receiving complaints against LACs for demanding money from beneficiaries. The majority of these officers (52%) rate the overall skills of a private legal practitioner as fairly good quality and that of LAC as moderately low quality.
The Constitutional Provisions and NALSA’s Efforts
Article 39A of the Indian Constitution states that the state must ensure that the legal system promotes justice based on equal opportunity. This includes providing free legal aid to any citizen denied justice due to economic or other disabilities. Similarly, Articles 14 and 22(1) oblige the state to ensure equality before the law and provide equal opportunity to all in the legal system.
To this end, NALSA has started initiatives like upgrading district-level front offices into one-stop centers for legal aid seekers. They also maintain records of legal aided cases to keep beneficiaries updated on their case progress, ensuring case monitoring efficiency.
Improving Legal Aid Services: The Way Forward
The report outlines a need for full-time engagement of LAC, as 45% of regulators believe that it will improve LAC commitment levels. Additionally, the report suggests aligning the honorarium—a payment for professional services rendered nominally without charge—for a legal aided case at par with private cases. This approach would motivate LACs not to withdraw or deny aided cases midway. Lastly, the report recommends annual remuneration increments for empaneled lawyers, particularly those serving in juvenile courts since they cannot maintain a private practice.
