Suk Das v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh
Supreme Court of India
1986
1986 (2) SCC 401
Article 21 & Fair Trial
~7 min
Author: Gulzar Hashmi
•
India
•
Published on
Primary Keywords:
Article 21
Free Legal Aid
Fair Trial
Vitiated Trial
Secondary Keywords:
Duty to Inform
Indigent Accused
Criminal Procedure
Right to Counsel
Quick Summary
Core point: The Supreme Court held that free legal aid is part of Article 21. Courts must inform an indigent accused about this right and ensure representation. If the accused is unrepresented and not told of this right, the trial is vitiated.
Issues
- Does failure to provide free legal aid to an indigent accused make the trial unconstitutional?
- Is it the court’s duty to inform the accused about free legal aid even without a request?
Rules
- Article 21 demands a fair, just, and reasonable procedure—this includes State-funded counsel where the accused lacks means.
- Legal aid cannot depend on a request; courts must proactively inform the accused.
- Trials without informing/providing counsel to an indigent accused are unfair and void.
Facts — Timeline
Top
Accused were tried for criminal intimidation (Sec. 506/34 IPC) in Dibang Valley, Arunachal Pradesh.
The appellant was indigent and lacked a lawyer; cross-examination suffered.
He wanted defence witnesses; some were refused as “immaterial”. He was convicted and jailed.
The High Court upheld conviction, saying he never asked for legal aid; sentence reduced to time served.
On SLP, the Supreme Court examined Article 21 duties about free legal aid and fair trial.
Arguments
Appellant
- Indigent and unrepresented → unfair trial under Article 21.
- Court never informed him of the right to free legal aid.
- In an adversarial system, lack of counsel cripples defence.
Respondent (UT)
- No request for legal aid was made; trial should stand.
- Refusal of some witnesses was within discretion.
- Evidence supported conviction despite representation gap.
Judgment
The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and sentence. Free legal aid at State cost is a part of Article 21. The duty to inform the accused is on the court; expecting a poor or illiterate person to ask for aid is unrealistic. The trial was vitiated. No fresh trial was ordered; reinstatement was allowed without back wages.
Ratio Decidendi
Fair trial = informed and effective defence. Article 21 embeds free legal aid for the indigent. Courts must advise the accused and ensure representation; otherwise, the proceeding collapses.
Why It Matters
- Access to justice: Legal aid from the start, not as an afterthought.
- Judicial duty: Judges must inform the accused about the right.
- Systemic fairness: Prevents convictions based on imbalance of power.
Key Takeaways
- Free legal aid is a constitutional right, not charity.
- No request needed—the court must inform.
- Unrepresented indigent accused → trial vitiated.
Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook
Mnemonic: “TELL-AID-VALID” — TELL the right, AID the accused, or the trial isn’t VALID.
- Inform: Judge tells the accused about free legal aid.
- Provide: Assign counsel if indigent.
- Protect: If not done → trial fails Article 21.
IRAC
| Issue | Whether failure to inform/provide free legal aid to an indigent accused violates Article 21 and vitiates the trial. |
|---|---|
| Rule | Article 21 requires fair, just, reasonable procedure → State-funded legal aid; duty on court to inform even without request. |
| Application | Appellant was indigent, unrepresented, and uninformed; defence was weakened; adversarial balance was lost. |
| Conclusion | Trial unconstitutional; conviction set aside; no retrial; service reinstated without back wages. |
Glossary
- Article 21
- Right to life and personal liberty through fair, just, and reasonable procedure.
- Indigent Accused
- A person who cannot afford a lawyer; entitled to State-funded counsel.
- Vitiated Trial
- A trial that is invalid due to violation of fundamental rights or essential procedure.
FAQs
No. Courts must inform the accused and arrange counsel if he cannot afford one.
The trial becomes unfair under Article 21 and the conviction cannot stand.
Courts may exclude immaterial witnesses, but lack of counsel can make the overall trial unfair.
Conviction and sentence were set aside, dismissal quashed, no retrial, reinstatement without back wages.
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now