The Supreme Court has ruled that an accused in a criminal case has a constitutional right to be represented and defended by a lawyer.
A bench comprising Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra while allowing the appeal of Sukur Ali noted, 'The founding fathers of our Constitution were freedom fighters themselves who had seen civil liberties of our people trampled under foreign rule, and who had themselves been incarcerated for long period under the formula 'na wakil, na dalil, na appeal' (No lawyer, no hearing, no appeal).
'Many of them were lawyers by profession and knew the importance of counsel, particularly in criminal cases.
'It was for this reason that they provided for assistance by counsel under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and that provision must be given the widest construction to effectuate the intention of the founding fathers.' The apex court directed the Gauhati High Court to rehear the case again either after hearing a counsel to be engaged by the accused or through a counsel practicing on the criminal side as amicus curie to be appointed by the court and decide the case after fixing another date.
The court ruled that an accused cannot be made to suffer for the lapse/absence of his lawyer.
It also relied on the judgements of the US Supreme Court and quoted from the speech of honourable Srinivasa Sastri who while speaking in the Imperial Legislative Council at the introduction of the Rowlatt Bill on February 7, 1919 opposing the ban on the appearance of counsel said, 'When government undertakes a repressive policy, the innocent are not safe.
'Man like me would not be considered innocent. The innocent then is he who forswears politics, who takes no part in the public movements of the time, who retires into his house, mumbles his prayers, pays his taxes, and salaams all the government officials all round.
'Much better that a few rascals should walk abroad than that the honest man should be obliged for fear of the law of the land to remain shut up in his house, to refrain from the activities which it is in his nature to indulge in, to abstain from all political and public work merely because there is dreadful law in the land.' UNI
A bench comprising Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra while allowing the appeal of Sukur Ali noted, 'The founding fathers of our Constitution were freedom fighters themselves who had seen civil liberties of our people trampled under foreign rule, and who had themselves been incarcerated for long period under the formula 'na wakil, na dalil, na appeal' (No lawyer, no hearing, no appeal).
'Many of them were lawyers by profession and knew the importance of counsel, particularly in criminal cases.
'It was for this reason that they provided for assistance by counsel under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and that provision must be given the widest construction to effectuate the intention of the founding fathers.' The apex court directed the Gauhati High Court to rehear the case again either after hearing a counsel to be engaged by the accused or through a counsel practicing on the criminal side as amicus curie to be appointed by the court and decide the case after fixing another date.
The court ruled that an accused cannot be made to suffer for the lapse/absence of his lawyer.
It also relied on the judgements of the US Supreme Court and quoted from the speech of honourable Srinivasa Sastri who while speaking in the Imperial Legislative Council at the introduction of the Rowlatt Bill on February 7, 1919 opposing the ban on the appearance of counsel said, 'When government undertakes a repressive policy, the innocent are not safe.
'Man like me would not be considered innocent. The innocent then is he who forswears politics, who takes no part in the public movements of the time, who retires into his house, mumbles his prayers, pays his taxes, and salaams all the government officials all round.
'Much better that a few rascals should walk abroad than that the honest man should be obliged for fear of the law of the land to remain shut up in his house, to refrain from the activities which it is in his nature to indulge in, to abstain from all political and public work merely because there is dreadful law in the land.' UNI
No comments:
Post a Comment