This article has been written by Debapriya Biswas. This article deals with the analysis of the landmark case of M. H. Hoskot v. The State of Maharashtra (1978). Further, the article discusses the issues raised in the case and the principles established by the Supreme Court to address these issues. Lastly, the article traces the significance of the judgement as well as the future implications it may have brought even in the present times.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Enshrined in Part III of the Constitution of India are the fundamental rights that are guaranteed to all citizens. Every individual is eligible for these rights, regardless of their age, gender, race, status, class, etc. However, despite the guarantee, it is the individuals imprisoned in jails that often face the most violations of fundamental rights, many of which are not further reported either.
Being imprisoned and found guilty of one’s crimes does not equate to one’s status being degraded from a person to a non-person. Every person is eligible for basic human rights and so are those imprisoned. The landmark judgement of M. H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra (1978) discusses the same in length, exploring the basic rights of a prisoner as well as the need for free legal aid and assistance for prisoners who are unable to secure legal services.
Details of the case
Date of judgement
August 17, 1978
Parties of the case
Petitioner: Madhav Hayawadanrao Hoskot
Respondents: State of Maharashtra
Citation
1978 AIR 1548, 1979 SCR (1) 192, 1978 SCC (3) 544, AIR 1978 Supreme Court 1548, 1978 SCC(CRI) 468.
Court
The Supreme Court of India
Judges/Coram
- Hon’ble Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer
- Hon’ble Justice D.A. Desai
- Hon’ble Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy
Background of the case
Education in India means more than just a quest for knowledge — it can be seen as a door to further opportunities or even an opportunity itself to help grab a higher-paying job. The higher the education level from a reputable college or university, the better chances there may be to get selected for higher-paying jobs.
With such a hunger for degrees, the Indian community provides a very favourable hunting ground for forgery and fabrication of such degrees, as seen in the present case with the petitioner. If the expertise in such fabrication is perfected as any other fine art and its practice undetected by the authorities, then there is quite more scope in this immoral business than an honest doctorate.
Even in the present job scenario, the competition for a single job posting is very high, even when the pay might be quite below the market rate. The rate of unemployment is high and people are desperate. In such circumstances, most people attempt to either build their academic achievements to the highest degree or find work through references. Since most lie in the former category, the fabrication of degrees and academic certificates also finds its way.
In addition to that, education is pricey, especially higher education like undergraduate and postgraduate studies. They are both costly and not readily available to all classes of society. While scholarships may be provided for those with social and economically backward backgrounds, many people find it difficult to even be admitted to such institutions given the high competition for each seat.
Thus, people either have to pay a high amount of money to be admitted and accommodated or give up their dream of studying further. This is why many people opt to fabricate their degrees instead, opting for it as a cheaper albeit immoral alternative.
In its essence, while education is still a necessity, the education system has become a borderline scam — a view that was also expressed by the Supreme Court of India in the present judgement.
Social Background
In the present case, the petitioner is a PhD and MSc holder while also attempting to fabricate the degrees of the same level from the same college he had attained them from — an irony in making that is more tragic than amusing. It should also be pertinent to note that the petitioner is from a middle-class family, which at the time was not at a status to even push through education beyond basic schooling.
Thus, the high academic background of the petitioner along with his economic status paints an image that is familiar to many already. It is often expected that the higher degrees one might have the higher paying jobs one may get, but the present case makes clear how that train of thought is not quite true.
As mentioned earlier, the education system has become a borderline scam given its pricey edge and more demand than availability. This has led to many scam artists working around to fabricate and sell degrees in a way to make money, which often makes more money than even an honest doctorate. The petitioner of the present case seemed to have thought the same as he made an attempt at fabrication of the certificate of degrees by the Karnataka University. However, he was caught before he could do so and was charged with forgery of authority letters and his fraudulent behaviour.
While not as severe as other crimes, the aforesaid offences should not be taken lightly either. Although initially the petitioner was given a very light sentence, with the view of his economic background and motivation, it was soon revised and extended up to three-year imprisonment.
In the present case, the economic status of the petitioner became one of the pivotal points of discussion, given how he was deprived of his right to appeal due to the delay of service of a copy of the judgement by the High Court while also not having enough funds to secure a legal professional. To counter both, the petitioner had filed a petition for appeal as soon as his sentence had ended and argued his case himself with the help of appropriate legal aid.
Many people in India are not aware of their rights, such as their right to bail or appeal, let alone have an idea of how to opt for legal aid if they are unable to afford legal services. This is especially true for people with lower social and economic status who find legal issues both costly and troublesome due to a lack of knowledge and aid.
Furthermore, since society does not have a favourable view of those with criminal charges or involved in legal prosecutions, many people opt to avoid legal conflicts at all costs — even if it means they have to waive their right to something. Many a time, people can’t even afford to access justice, leading to the same conclusion.
In the present case, the Supreme Court of India discusses the same at length, emphasising the need for free legal aid as well as its awareness among the public to help pave a better path to justice. Law provides protection to everyone regardless of their gender, race, class or status but the ones receiving the protection should also be aware of the means to access these services.
Legal Background
Enshrined in the Constitution of India are the rights and duties of every individual as well as the State itself. The Constitution, through its various provisions, protects and uplifts human development. Every individual in India is eligible for the rights and duties enshrined in the Constitution, which shall be granted when needed and addressed when breached.
One such right is the right to free legal aid and assistance under Article 39A of the Indian Constitution, which was added later on in 1976 by the 42nd Amendment of the Constitution. While not present in the initial stage of formulation of the Constitution, free legal aid now stands to be one of the most crucial steps to access to justice for different sections of society.
Free legal aid, in essence, helps to pave the path for a fair and reasonable legal procedure while upholding the laws of natural justice. Without such assistance, people from socially and economically backward classes would feel handicapped. After all, legal services are quite pricey and are not often available to all. Thus, it is vital to provide free legal aid to those in need to provide for a fair procedure.
As previously held by the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), Article 21 read with Article 19 of the Indian Constitution provided that fair legal procedures are part of personal liberty, without which no one can be deprived of their right to life and personal liberty.
Thus, it can be concluded that a fair legal procedure is the basis for any fair and unbiased prosecution and to facilitate the same, free legal aid and assistance is necessary. The question that arises here is whether free legal aid should be provided only to those in poverty or should it be extended beyond, such as the prisoners who may not be in a position to communicate with the outside world much.
In the present case, the Supreme Court discusses the aforesaid question in detail, expanding the scope of Article 142 of the Indian Constitution which empowers the Supreme Court to exercise its jurisdiction wherever it is necessary to ensure complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.
This expansion of the scope of Article 142 evolved after a lot of judicial development with the aim to bring complete justice to deprived or marginalised sections of society, including the poor and needy people. In the present case, prisoners were also added to the scope of its protection.
Facts of MH Hoskot vs. State of Maharashtra (1978)
The petitioner of this case, Dr Hoskot, was a PhD and MSc holder from Karnataka University that was also questioned for fabrication given the actions of the petitioner. In the prior verdict, the petitioner was prosecuted and found guilty of forging counterfeit degrees under the name of Karnataka University.
The petitioner had forged a letter of authority along with the signature of the personal assistant to the Vice-Chancellor of Karnataka University, which authorised him with the power to get official seals with the name of the University made. With this forged authority letter, the petitioner had approached a seal-maker in Bombay named DabholKar, who was an expert in crafting embossing seals for administration and educational systems.
This embossed seal, once obtained, could then be used by the petitioner to make counterfeit certificates of degrees in the name of Karnataka University. However, before that could happen, the seal-maker informed the police of the said transaction, leading to the petitioner being caught red-handed in the forgery.
The Petitioner was held guilty of offences under Sections 417, 467, 468, 471 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by the Sessions Court, leading to a sentence of simple imprisonment of one day and a fine. In the view that the petitioner came from a middle-class family, the Court had given him a much softer sentence than anticipated by the State.
Thus, both the State and the petitioner filed appeals against the verdict of the Sessions Court to the Bombay High Court, asking for a revision of the one-day imprisonment. The petitioner argued against the simple imprisonment while the State contended that for such serious offences under the aforesaid sections, the imprisonment imposed was too light.
The Bombay High Court allowed the State’s prayers while dismissing the petitioner’s appeal and enhanced the imprisonment period from one day to three years. This verdict was given on November 22, 1973, three days after which the Central Prison Authority of Bombay took custody of the petitioner in conformity with the judgement. Later on, the petitioner was transferred to the Yerawada Jail in Pune where he was held for the rest of his imprisonment period of three years.
After his release, the petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution, seeking relief for his imprisonment despite a four-year delay. The petitioner opted to argue for himself with the help of professional legal aid provided by the Court, given his economic background. He reasoned that the delay in filing the present petition was due to the late delivery of the copy of the verdict of the Bombay High Court, which he did not receive until after his imprisonment period was completed despite applying for the same.
Issues raised
The issues raised before the Supreme Court of India were as follows:
- Whether the present petition is maintainable under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution.
- Whether Article 21 of the Indian Constitution encompasses the concept of free legal aid.
Contentions of the parties
Petitioner
As briefly stated earlier, the main contention of the petitioner was that there was a delay in his grant of a copy of the judgement by the Bombay High Court. The copy of the judgement given by the High Court in November 1973 was delivered to the petitioner in 1978 — a delay of over four years despite the fact that a free copy of the same was promptly sent by the High Court through the Superintendent of the Central Prison, Pune.
According to the petitioner, he had requested a certified copy of the verdict of the High Court through the jail authorities on December 10, 1973, under Section 363 (2) read with Section 387 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). However, the petitioner did not receive any copy of the judgement despite his application.
The petitioner argued that even if the certified copy of the judgement was received by the jail authorities, it was never delivered to him during his imprisonment of three years. Due to this, the petitioner lost his right to appeal under a special leave petition and was forced to opt for a condonation petition under the Indian Limitation Act instead once he procured a copy of the verdict in 1978.
The petitioner’s argument that he never received the copy of the judgement was supported by a lack of any record or token of receipt for such delivery. Since there was no signature of the petitioner in the authority’s register for the recipe, there was no proof whether the petitioner was ever served the copy of the judgement by the High Court.
Respondent
The Respondent, on the other hand, argued that the apparent delay in the delivery of the copy of judgement was not due to their own actions.
As per the Superintendent of the Pune Central Prison, a clerk from his office had indeed delivered the copy of the judgement by the High Court to the petitioner. However, the copy was later retrieved back from the petitioner since it needed to be enclosed with a mercy petition to the Governor of Maharashtra for the remission of the sentence.
Due to the aforementioned retrieval, there was a delay in the delivery of the copy of the judgement to the petitioner.
Laws discussed in MH Hoskot vs. State of Maharashtra (1978)
Given below is a brief of the legal provisions discussed in the present case analysis:
The Constitution of India, 1949
Article 19 of the Indian Constitution
Enshrined in Article 19 (1) of the Indian Constitution are the six fundamental freedoms guaranteed to the citizens of India, which are:
- Freedom of speech and expression;
- Freedom to assemble peacefully;
- Freedom to form associations or unions;
- Freedom to travel and move throughout India;
- Freedom to reside and settle in any part of India;
- Freedom to practise any type of profession, occupation, trade or business.
The restrictions of the abovementioned rights are provided in the rest of the clauses of the same Article of the Constitution.
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution
The right to life and personal liberty is enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. This Article has become an umbrella provision for many other rights that are essential to protect the rights of the citizens of India, which may not explicitly be included in the Constitution. The only exception to Article 21 is when deprivation of the right to life or personal liberty of any individual is done as per the procedure established by law.
Article 22 of the Indian Constitution
Article 22 of the Indian Constitution provides protection against any unlawful detention or arrest. It establishes the rights of the arrestees, which include the right to consult or be defended by a legal professional, the right to be informed of the grounds of their arrest, the right to be produced in front of the local Magistrate within 24 hours, etc.
Article 39A of the Indian Constitution
Under Directive Principles of State Policy, Article 39A of the Indian Constitution establishes the State responsibility of free legal aid and assistance for needy citizens. This Article aims to ensure access to justice by every citizen of India through free legal services, to ensure that the State is encouraged to make appropriate legal provisions, schemes, etc.
Article 136 of the Indian Constitution
Article 136 of the Indian Constitution grants the Supreme Court power to entertain a Special Leave Petition to appeal from any verdict, order, sentence or otherwise from any court or tribunal in India regarding any cause or matter.
Article 142 of the Indian Constitution
Article 142 of the Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court to pass and enforce any orders and decrees that are necessary to ensure complete justice for the cause or matter pending before it. This includes the order for the production of any evidence, document, person or otherwise for the purpose of prosecution.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 304 CrPC
Section 304 of CrPC deals with legal aid in cases where the accused is unable to secure any legal services. In such cases, the Court has the power to assign a representative advocate for the accused whose expense would be paid by the State as per the Court’s order.
Section 363 CrPC
Section 363 of the CrPC states that a certified copy of the verdict of the Court should be given to all the parties involved in the case, especially the accused when any sentence is given against them. Under this section, an application can be filed to request a copy of the judgement, let it be in the language of the Court or any other language that the applicant is comfortable with. The delivery should be free of cost and immediate, especially in cases of the death penalty or other severe punishments.
Under this section, the applicant can also request copies of orders or verdicts of any Criminal Court despite not being a party to the case with a prescribed fee if the High Court allows so. The fee for the same can be waived if the Court deems it necessary.
Section 387 CrPC
As per Section 387 of CrPC, all the rules stated in Chapter XXVII of CrPC that apply to criminal courts of original jurisdiction shall also apply to the appellate courts such as the Sessions Court or the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 417 IPC
Section 417 of the IPC deals with the punishment for cheating, which is imprisonment that may extend up to one year or a fine or both.
Section 467 IPC
This section of the IPC deals with the forgery of security, wills, authority letters or any documents that give the authority of anything of a valuable nature to another individual. Under this section, anyone found to be guilty of forgery shall be punished with imprisonment that may extend up to ten years or a fine or both. Depending on the severity of the case, the punishment can also be extended to imprisonment for life.
Section 468 IPC
Section 468 of IPC deals with the offence of forgery with the purpose of cheating. As per this section, anyone found to be guilty of the said offence shall be punished with imprisonment that may extend up to seven years as well as a fine. This section is applicable for the forgery of both physical and digital copies of a document.
Section 471 IPC
Section 471 deals with using a forged document, let it be a physical or electronic copy, as a genuine one despite knowing that it is not. Under this section, anyone found to be guilty of the same would be punished with the same sentence as given in Section 467, as if he was the one who had forged the documents himself.
Section 511 IPC
Section 511 of IPC is a general provision that deals with the punishment for the attempt of a crime. In simple words, even if the accused was not successful in committing the criminal offence as planned, his attempt to do so would be counted as the same. Under this section, the individual who had attempted an offence under IPC would be tried and punished under the same sentence as if he had been successful in committing the crime.
Judgement in M.H. Hoskot vs. State of Maharashtra (1978)
Ratio decidendi behind the judgement
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution protects the right to life and personal liberty of an individual, which includes all the aspects that may affect the same. Anything that may deprive an individual of their overall development or living life as they wish to shall be covered under this Article. In a manner, this Article stands as an umbrella for other human rights to be included within the ambit of the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution.
The only exception to Article 21 stands to be when such deprivation of the right to life or personal liberty is done as per the procedure established by law. In other words, only through the fair and reasonable procedure that is established within the Indian laws can an individual be deprived of the rights under this Article.
The ‘fair and reasonable’ procedure, which also finds its roots in natural justice, also includes the right to appeal to a higher bench than the tribunal the case was tried in. It is applicable for both civil and criminal cases, such as the present Special Leave Petition where the petitioner had filed against the verdict of his previous criminal prosecution.
Appeals are an integral part of fair procedure and natural justice, giving both the parties of the case reasonable times and stages to be heard and trialled for. Every step of the appeal is crucial as well as obligatory and any inaction or obstacle in the same could lead to injustice and infringement of the rights of the party, as seen in the present case.
In the judgement of the present case, the Supreme Court emphasised that every step in the right of the appeal is crucial for a fair procedure and if any such step is stultified due to the action or inaction of another, it would be unfair and lead to the infringement of rights enshrined under Article 21 read with Article 19 of the Indian Constitution. The Court also highlighted how this view was previously established in the Maneka Gandhi case, where it was laid down that without a fair legal procedure, no one can be deprived of their right to personal liberty.
In addition to this, the Supreme Court also emphasised the fact that the right to free legal aid, enshrined under Article 39A, is also a necessary part of the access to justice for those in socially and economically backward classes. Since the legal fees can be quite high and often unaffordable for many people, opting for free legal aid as provided by the State can prevent the sense of handicap that people from such backgrounds may often feel in the absence of professional legal service.
Observations by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed two major points in the present case; the first one being the delivery of the certified copy of the judgement to the accused or prisoner within the limitation period for further appeal and the second one being the provision of free legal services for the individuals, especially prisoners, who are unable to secure professional legal services due to their social and economic backgrounds. Both of these points lie under the responsibilities of the State, specifically under Article 21 and apply wherever procedural laws provide, including for further appeals to a higher bench.
In the present case, the petitioner’s right to appeal was stultified due to the delay in the delivery of the copy of the verdict of the Bombay High Court. This inaction on the part of the State, on whom the responsibility to deliver the copy of the order or the judgement to the prisoner lies, the petitioner was not able to appeal and had to wait till the fulfilment of the full term of his imprisonment before doing so.
Failure of proper service of the order or judgement to the prisoner led to the infringement of the rights to appeal of the prisoner while also paving the path to illegal or unlawful detention if continued so without correction. Just because an individual is imprisoned does not entail that they are stripped of their constitutional and statutory rights, including that of appeal and special leave petitions.
The Court also observed that legal aid is a crucial part of ensuring justice is accessible to everyone, regardless of their status or background. Articles 39A and 21 read with Article 142 of the Indian Constitution empower the Court to assign a competent counsel for accused parties who are imprisoned, especially in case they are unable to secure legal services due to their economic background.
It was further observed that while Article 22 (1) of the Indian Constitution also mentions a legal practitioner, the scope of it is much more generalised. Thus, the purpose of legal aid in prison situations, Article 21 is to be read with Article 39A.
Holding of the Supreme Court
In view of the abovementioned reasonings and observation, the Supreme Court condoned the delay of the delivery of the verdict to the petitioner but still dismissed the present petition. However, the Court established some rules regarding the service of a copy of the judgement to the parties along with free legal aid for those unable to secure legal services.
The Supreme Court held that all the parties of the case should be provided with a copy of the order or judgement passed by the Court, let it be in a civil case or criminal. Especially in cases where the accused is sentenced to imprisonment, the accused has the right to request a certified copy of the judgement sentencing him the same.
If the accused is already imprisoned, then the service of the certified copy of the judgement or the order passed by the Court should be the responsibility of the jail authorities. Such delivery should be made without unnecessary delays and within the period for the filing of an appeal. To make sure it is delivered to the accused, a written acknowledgement of such delivery should also be obtained for the same.
The Court also held that in the cases where the prisoner seeks to file a revision of their case or even an appeal, the jail authorities shall provide every facility to help the prisoner in his endeavour. Any obstacles during such a step would lead to grave injustice, as seen in the present case.
It was further held that any jailor or prison authority withholding the delivery of copies of official Court documents to the prisoners would be held liable for violation of Section 363 of CrPC and Article 21 of the Constitution. This is due to the fact that such actions stand as an obstacle to fair and reasonable procedure and may lead to unlawful or illegal detention of the prisoner.
The Court also extensively discussed the necessity of free legal aid in the present judgement, stating that it is the obligation of the Court to assign a competent counsel for the prisoner in cases where the prisoner is unable to secure professional legal services due to poor economic background or lack of communication with anyone outside, especially for cases where the gravity of the offences and the subsequent sentence is severe and grave injustice may occur without proper counsel hired for the prisoner. The prisoner can also object to such an assignment or even to the particular counsel assigned.
The legal fees of the assigned counsel would be paid by the State that had prosecuted the accused, which shall be equitably fixed by the Court where the case is tried.
Analysis of the judgement
The present judgement stands to be one of the precedents that made the presence of free legal aid more prominent in India, especially for those in prison. As one may already be aware, there is a lot of stigma against those who are in imprisonment — even if one may be acquitted of all their charges, they may still face issues later on due to being entangled in legal issues and facing criminal charges.
In addition to this prejudice, the status of most prisoners is not quite well off either. Many prisoners are shut down once in jail and there have been many incidents where the prisoners’ basic human rights have been infringed horrendously.
In such circumstances, access to justice for prisoners becomes quite hard, especially given most of them are quite disconnected from the outside world and do not know how to secure legal services for themselves from the prison. Being imprisoned and found guilty of one’s crimes does not equate to one’s status being degraded from a person to a non-person.
The Supreme Court’s holding in this judgement led to a massive improvement in the justice rate for those in prison, especially in the context of their right to appeal and request for a copy of the verdict of their sentencing. Moreover, the detailed discussions as well as guidelines given in regard to the scope of free legal aid have also paved the path for further development of the concept, which is quite necessary for a country like India where many people seek justice but cannot afford legal services. Unlike the current times, the awareness about free legal services and assistance was not as prevalent back then and this case set a precedent to make them more accommodating for the needful.
While the petition was dismissed, the guidelines given by the Supreme Court regarding procedural and legal delays were quite crucial for the judicial development of the rights of the prisoners. Furthermore, the present judgement also drew out detailed instructions on the delivery of legal documents and transcripts of the respective cases to the prisoners, which was also a major step towards securing the rights of the imprisoned individuals. Holding the State accountable for their negligence was also a necessary step towards preventing the repeat of any such incident.
The further expansion of Article 21 read with Article 39A and Article 142 to interpret a wider scope for free legal aid as well as to assign a competent counsel for their representation was a vital part of this judgement that shaped the judicial system as we currently know it.
Significance of M.H. Hoskot vs. State of Maharashtra (1978)
The present judgement brings limelight to several issues regarding the justice system, especially the treatment of prisoners and how the rights of the prisoners are the first to always be cut down. As mentioned earlier, there’s a strong social prejudice against those imprisoned and this carries on during and even after the individual serves their term.
Such prejudice is especially noticed in cases where the rights of the prisoners are violated, as seen in the present case. The petitioner was robbed of his right to appeal within the limitation period because of a delay that could not be reasonably proven either. It was a product of carelessness and negligence, which can be seen as a recurring theme in cases relating to prisoners. Such negligence then leads to not only a violation of fundamental rights but also years of the life of the prisoners wasted as they are illegally detained.
The procedural and legal delays regarding the same were also addressed in the present judgement, along with the rights of the prisoners to free legal aid and assistance. This led to this case being cited as a landmark judgement for the development of prisoners’ rights as well as free legal aid for the needy, let it be those stricken by poverty or by those who are unable to secure legal services due to circumstances like being in prison.
This judgement was the first one to recognize the prisoner’s rights, the view of which was then supported by several other landmark judgements such as the Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978). In this case, Article 19 read with Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, established that fair legal and judicial procedures are a part of personal liberty, without which no one can be deprived of their right to life and personal liberty.
Another landmark judgement that cited the present case and its view regarding free legal aid was Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State Of Bihar (1979). In this case, the Supreme Court reiterated that free legal aid and assistance is a vital part of the rights of an accused party, regardless of the crime they have committed. It also discussed the right to legal assistance under Article 21 of the Constitution and the need for speedy trials for undertrial prisoners to avoid further violation of their rights.
Khatri v. The State of Bihar (1980) also followed the principles set by the present judgement, where the Court held that it was the constitutional obligation of the State to provide legal aid and assistance to an accused party who was unable to afford or find professional legal services. It also discussed the State’s role in ensuring free and fair trial and how it is their obligation to do so.
In addition to these cases, further developments have been brought to minimise the procedural and legal delays, such as the recent introduction of the portal called ‘FASTER 2.0’ which catalogues official Court orders and verdicts of sentences and releases of prisoners. The portal is available and easily accessible to all the jail authorities across India, with the aim of allowing immediate intimation without any confusion or delay of the same. The copy of the verdicts or orders of the Court from the portal can then be printed and shared with the prisoners to avoid any unnecessary delays.
Furthermore, statutory authorities such as the National Legal Services Authority or NALSA were also established by legislation like the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 to promote and regulate free legal aid and assistance at different levels of the judiciary. In 2016, the Model Prison Manual was introduced which gave further guidelines and information about legal services and assistance that can be opted by imprisoned individuals.
Nationwide schemes such as the Modernization of Prisons Scheme were also launched in the early 2000s to improve the conditions of the prisons, which was later turned into the Modernisation of Prisons Project in 2021. The project aims to provide financial assistance to several prisons throughout the nation, improving the living conditions of the prisoners while also introducing rehabilitation programmes for the prisoners. Other projects, such as the E-Prisons Project, were also introduced by the government to digitalise the jail security systems to keep up with the times.
Conclusion
In the end, the judgement of M. H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra, set a precedent for prisoner’s rights in India, bringing recognition to the violation faced by the imprisoned individual and their need for legal assistance in such circumstances. While the petition itself was dismissed, the guidelines regarding free legal aid and the delivery of legal documents to the prisoners by the judicial authorities were discussed in detail.
This judgement also highlighted the negative consequences of procedural and legal delays, especially in relation to rights like the right to appeal that have a short limitation period. The duties of the authorities to prevent such mishaps were addressed by the Supreme Court at length, along with their obligation to provide any and all legal assistance that the prisoners may need for filing for appeal or revision.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
What are the basic rights of a prisoner?
In India, prisoners retain all their basic human rights as any other citizen except the restriction of the right to life and personal liberty with the due procedure established. These rights include the right to be represented by a legal professional, the right to be treated with dignity, the right to be informed of their bail and Court verdicts, etc. Most of these rights are enshrined in the Constitution as well as other statutory provisions like the Prisoner’s Act, 1894.
Can prisoners get free legal aid?
Yes, prisoners also have the right to free legal aid enshrined in Article 39A of the Constitution when read with Article 21. Individuals unable to secure legal services due to poor economic background or due to a complete disconnect from the outside world can opt for legal aid that will be provided by the State.
Is free legal aid part of fundamental rights?
Yes, free legal aid is a part of both the fundamental rights under Article 21 as well as the Directive Principles of State Policy under Article 39A.
References
- M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India, Universal Law Publishing Co., Reprint 2013.
- M. Bakshi, The Constitution of India, Universal Law Publishing Co., 2014.
- Dr J.N. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India, Central Law Agency, Allahabad, 37th edition, 2001.
Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.
LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:
Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.
