On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that denying an accused effective legal aid infringes upon their fundamental right to a fair trial, protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court’s judgment was delivered while acquitting Ashok, who was previously sentenced in a 2009 rape and murder case in Uttar Pradesh.
Justice Abhay S Oka, leading the bench, highlighted that ineffective legal representation could lead to the violation of fundamental rights. Article 39A further obliges the state to ensure free legal aid is available to the accused. The case of Ashok was particularly noted for severe lapses in legal representation; he was unrepresented during critical stages of his trial, and the legal aid lawyer assigned was frequently absent and changed three times throughout the proceedings.
The apex court emphasized that quality legal aid is essential for the protection of constitutional rights. The justices, including Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Augustine George Masih, expressed concern over the handling of Ashok’s case by the legal system, which resulted in a death sentence issued by the trial court in 2012, later converted to a life sentence by the Allahabad High Court upon appeal. The Supreme Court, shocked by the procedural oversights, granted Ashok bail in May 2022.
The judgment also criticized both the trial and high court for their failure to comply with the requirements of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), under which the accused must be informed of incriminating evidence. This oversight, according to the Supreme Court, warranted an acquittal.
Senior advocates Shoeb Alam and Talha Abdul Rehman, appointed as amicus curiae, suggested improvements for legal aid effectiveness. The court’s recommendations include appointing advocates with extensive knowledge of criminal, evidence, and procedural laws, and ensuring that complex cases involve senior advocates with at least ten years of experience.
Moreover, the court stressed the importance of communicating with the accused in a language they understand to avoid prejudice. Given the age of the case and the long duration since the incident, the Supreme Court opted against sending the matter back to the trial court, stating it would be unjust for Ashok to now defend himself against evidence presented over fifteen years ago.
