MADRAY HAYAWADANRAO HOSKOT v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

In Art. 21 of the Constitution the guarantee of the personal liberty is phrased with superb amplitude with the words, "No person shall be deprived of his.life or persona-I liberty except accord- ing to procedure established by law". of deep meaning for all lovers of liberty and judicial sentinels. Amplified activist fashion, 'procedure' means 'fair and reasonable procedure' which comports with in community consciousness civilised norms like natural justice rooted firm not primitive processual barbarity nor legislated normative mockery. [201C-Ej "Procedure established by la.w" are words C

#2. One component of 'fair procedure' is natural justice. Generally speaking anU. subject to just exceptions, at lerust a single right of appeal on facts·, where D- criminal conviction is fraught with long loss of liberty, is basic to civilized 1uns prudencr. It is integral to fair procedure, natural justice and normative univer- sality sa\'e in special cases like the original tribunal being a high bench 'iitting 011 a collcgb·te basis. High Court, as provided in the Criminal Procedure C'ode, manifests this_ value upheld in Art. 21. Every step that makes the right of appeal fruitful is :Jbiiga- tory and every action or inaction \vhich stultifies it is unfair and, ergo, unconsti- tutional (ln a sense, even Art. 19 may join hands with Art. 21, as the Maneka Gandhi reasoning discloses). Maneka Gandhi's case has la·id down that personal liberty cHnnot be cut out or down dowrl without [197F, 2030-E, F 208EJ In short, a first appeal from the Sessions Corirt to fair legal procedure. E: Pertinent to the point in the case 11·re t\VO requirements : (i) service of a copy of the judgment to the prisoner in time to file an appeal and (ii) provision F of free legal servics to a prisoner who is indigent or otherwise disabled from securing legal assistance \vhere the ends or. justice call for such service. Both these are State responsibilities under Art. 21 and !apply where procedural law provides. for further appeals as \1iell. [203F-G1 Maneka Gandhi v. Un:'on of India, [1978] 1 SCR 621~'re'ferred to.

#3. Judicial Justice with procedural intricacies, legal submissions and critical examination of evidence, leans upon professional expertise; and a failure of equal iu~tice under the h·"w is on the cards \Vhcre such supportive skill is absent for one side. Our Judicature and Judicial Process, engin~ered by kirii:lred legal fechno!og~-, compel the collaboration of lawyer-power for steering the "·heels of equal 1ast1ce under the law. [204C-D] G . If a. p~·is~ner v»ho is sentenced to imprisonment is virtually unable to exercis.:. his c~n511tut1onal a·nd statutory right of appeal, inclusive of special leave to appeal for want of legal assistance, there is implicit in the Court under Ait. 142 I! 194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (J 979] ] S.C.R. A read with Articles 21 and 39A of the Constitution po, ver to a·:;sign counsel for such imprisoned individual "for doing complete justice". This is a necessary incident of the right of appeal conferred by the Code and allowed by Art. 136 of the Constitution. The accused has ~ right to counsel not in the permissive sense of Art. 22(1) and its wider amplitude but in the peremptory sense of Art. 21 confined to prison situations. f28F·.G, 209C] B

#4. Where the prisoner seeks to file an appeal or revision every facility tor (209E] exercise of that right shall be made available by the jail ndrninistration, (a) Courts shall forthwith furnish free transcript copy of th1;i judgment \\1hen sentencing a person to prison term. In the event of any such copy being 'il!nt to the jail authorities for delivery to the prisoner by the appellate, revisional or other Court, the official concerned shall \Vith quick despatch, get it delivered to the sentence and obtain \vritten acknowledgment thereof from him. Any jailor who by indifference or vendetta, withholds the copy thwarts the Court proco..!ss and violates Art. 21 and may pave the way for holding the further impnson ment illegal. These obliga·tions are necessarily implied in the right of appeal con ferred by the Code read with the commitment to procedura·l fairness in Art. 21. S. 363 of the Cr. P.C. is an a-:tivist expression of this import of Art. 21 and is inviolable. [204A-B & 209DE] John Richard Argl'rsinRer v. Rayniond llan1li11, 407 U.S. 25 32 LEd. 2d. 530 at 535-36 and 554, quoted with approval. Art. 8 of lhc Universal Declaration On Human Rights and Art. 14(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, referred to. c 0 E ( b) The State which prosecuted the prisoner and set in motion the prJccss v.'hich deprived him of his liberty shall pay to the assigned counsel such sun1 as the Court n1ay equitably fix. The Court Olt.!Y judge the situation and consiuer fron1 all angles whether it is necessary in the ends of justice to n1ake av2'il<ible legal aid in the particular case. That discretion resides in the Court f209A-B, & F GJ ( c) These benign prescriptions operate by force of Art. 21 "strengthened by Art. 19(1)(d) read \Vith sub-article (5) fro111 the lo\vest to the highest Court where deprivation of life and personal liberty is in substantial peril. f209H] G H

#5. Since the Supfeme Court is the last in lndia.n pyramid of justice every party in person elicits fro1n the Court extra sOiicitude so that he may not suffer from a sense of handicap due to: the absence of profess~onal legal service. In the pre sent petition, the party though proffered legal aid by the Court preferred to argue himself. f197H, 198A, 209BJ

#6. (a) The Supreme Court has laid down certain fundamcnt&l prin~iples governing its jurisdiction when special leave is Constitution. The Court cannot depart from this criteria lest the endless ch:1se for justice by every defeated litigant, civil and crin1inal should flood dysfunction. I l 98A-Bl sought under Art. 136 of • , • M. H. HOSKOT v. MAHARASHTRA (Krishna Iyer, J.) 195 Uj.jagar Singh & Anr. v. State (Del/ii Adnui.), Order in S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1319 etc. of 1977 dt. 31-7-78 (unreported case). (b) The soft justice syndrome vis-.~-vis white collar offenders scandali~.s the \vith naive It stultifies social justice and camouflages needed severity Court. leniency. [196G] A B criminological (c) Social defence is the foundation of punish1ncnt. In the instant case, the trial judge has confused betweeri correctional approach to prison treatment and nominal punishment verging on decriminalisa.tion of se1 ious social offences. The first is basic and the second pathetic. That Court which ignores the grave injury to society implicit in economic crimes by the upper berth 'mafia' ill serves social justice. Soft sentencing justice is gross injustice where many innocents are the potential victin1S. to insist on therapeutic treatment, hospital setting and correctional goals inside the prison "even punctuated by parole, opportl,1nities for welfare work, mcdita tional normalisation and healthy self-expression" so that the convict may be humanised and on release rehabilitated as a safe citizen. Coddling is not correc tional any more than torture is deterrent. While iatrogenic prison terms are bad because they dehun1anize, it is functional failure and judicial pathology to hold out a benignly self defeating non-sentence to deviants who endanger the D morals and morale, the health and wealth of society. It is altogether a different th1r.g C (199E-H, 200A] Mohanimad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pratlf!sh [1978] 1 SCR 153, applied. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (Crimi·· nal) No. 408 of 1978. From the Judgment and Order dated 22-11-1973 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 747 /72 with Criminal Review Application No. 685172. • • In person for the Petitioner· -./ H. R. Khanna and M. N. Shroff for the Respondent. T1le Order of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA IYER, J.-A short paragraph might perhaps have been sufficient as obituary note on this Special Leave Petition but two basic issnes-one of prison justice and the o!her of sentencing caprice cl1allenge our attention and deserve more elaboration. • ) The facts, more flabbergasting than fantasy, present themselves in this Special Leave Petition. The appeal is against a conviction con- H currenlly rendered for a novel and daring set of crimes and follow--up sentence of three year prison term. The offence is bizarre, E F G A B c D E F G H 196 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1979] I s.c.R. offender perplexing, the sentence incredibly indiscreet at the Sessions Court stage but reasonably just at the High Court level and, to cap it all, the delay in seeking leave from this Court is doubly shocking be cause it is inordinate and implicates the prison administration. A miniaturised version of the prosecution, which has cuTminated in the conviction, is all that is necessary in view of the ultimate order the Saurashtra we propose to make. The petitioner, a Reader in University, claims to be a Ph. D. of Karnataka University, although there is a controversy as to this high academic qualification being a fabrication. In the present case we are not concerned with it directly. His moot academic proficiency apart, his abortive enterprise in an other field has landed him in the present criminal case. According to the prosecution, Dr. Hoskot, the petitioner, approached Dabhol k~r, a block-maker of Bombay, placed an order to prepare an emboss ing seal in the name of the Karnataka University, Dharwar, and forged a letter of authority purporting to have been signed by the Per sonal Assistant to the Vice-Chancellor of the said University authoris ing him to get the seals made. This Project Counterfeit Degrees, if we may so call it, had, perhaps, as its object the concoction of certi ficates of degrees by the Karnataka University. A degree-hungry community like ours offers a happy hunting ground for professionals in the fine art of fabricating academic distinctions. If the expertise is perfect and its exercise undetected there is more money in it than in an honest doctorate. Anyway, the petitioner's mis-adventure was intercepted before it could fulfil itself because Dabholkar, the Bombay block-maker, was too clever a customer. He gave pre-emptive infor mation to the police leading to the unearthing in time of the criminal scheme. The Sessions court tried the petitioner and held as proved beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner was gnilty of the grave offences charged, namely, under ss. 417 read with 511 LP.C., s. 467 LP.C., s. 468 LP.C. and ss. 471 read with 467 LP.C. After having rendered this draconian verdict against a person who was a Reader in a University and claimed to be M.Sc., Ph. D., around 30 years old and coming from a middle-class family beyond economic compulsions to make a living by criminal means, the court swerved towards a soft sentence of simple imprisonment till the rising of the court and some fine. We are scandalized by this soft justice syndrome vis-a-vis white It stultifies social justice and camouflages needed collar offenders. severity with naive leniency. However, two appeals were carried to the High Court, one by the petitioner against his conviction and the other by the State against the naive sentence. The High Court dismissed the appeal against the conviction and, in allowance of the State's • • ... M. H. HOSKOT v. MAHARASHTRA (Krishna Iyer, !.) 197 prayer for enhancement, imposed for three years. The present petition for special leave to appeal is against this heavy sentence. rigorous imprisonment The High Court's judgment was pronounced in November 1973 but the Special Leave Petition has been made well over four years later. This hiatus may appear horrendous, all the more so because the petitioner has undergone his full term of imprisonment during this lengthy interregnum. The explanation offered by him for condona tion of the delay, if true, discloses a disturbing episode of prison in justice. To start with the petitioner complained that the High Court granted a copy of the judgment of 1973 only in 1978, a further probe disclosed that a free copy had been sent promptly by the High Court, meant for the applicant, to the Superintendent. Yeravada Central Prison, Pune. The petitioner denies having been served that copy and there is nothing on record which bears his signature in token of receipt of the High Court's judgment. The Prison Superintendent, on the other hand, would have ns believe that a clerk of his office did deliver it to the prisoner but took it back for the purpose of enclosing it with a mercy petition to the Governor for remission of sentence. This exonerative story may be imaginary or true, but there is no writ ing to which the petitioner is a party to validate this plea. The fact remains that prisoners are situationally at the mercy of the prison 'brass' but their right to appeal, which is part of the constitutional pro cess to resist illegal deprivation of liberty, is in peril, if district jail officials' ipse dixit that copies have been served is to pass muster without a title of prisoner's acknowledgment. What is more, there is no statutory provision for free legal serives to a prisoner, in absence of which, a right of appeal for the legal illiterates is nugatory and, therefore, a negation of that fair legal procedure which is implicit m Art. 21 of the Constitution, as made explicit by this Court in Maneka Gandhi(1). Having narrated the necessary facts which project the two pro found but neglected problems of criminal jurisprudence we should have proceeded to discuss the· merits of the evidence to decide whether Indeed, although the court leave should be granted to this petitioner. had assigned a lawyer to render free legal service to the petitioner and argue the case on his behalf, Dr. Hoskot decided to dispense with legal assistance and argued on his own. Of course, he has presented in his endeavour to his case capably and with analytical precision controvert the correctness of the findings of the courts below. We have listened to him at some length since this Court is the lasi in the A B c D E F G H (1) [1978 2 s.c.R. 621. • .. A c D E F G H 198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1979] ! S.C.R. Indian pyramid of justice and a party in person elicits from us extra solicitude so that he may not suffer from a sense of handicap due to the absence of professional legal service. Nevertheless, this Court has laid down certain fundamental principles governing its jurisdiction when special leave is sought. We cannot depart from these criteria lest the endless chase for justice by every defeated litigant, civil and criminal, should flood this Co~rt into dysfunction by a docket Uood. recent pronouncement of a It is dangerous to be too good. The Bench of this Court, through the learned Chief Justice, settles witl1 clarity the decisive jurisdictional guideline. We quote: "In view of the concurrent findings of the Sessions Court and the High Court on the principal issues arising in the case we see no justification for granting special leave for a reconsideration of the question as regards the guilt of the petitioners. . . . . . There is hardly a ca.se, civil or criminal, which does not raise some question of law or the other. But no question of law of general public importance is involved in these petitions. It is time that it was realised that the jurisdiction of this Court to grant special leave to appeal can be invoked only in very exceptional circumstances. A question of law of general public importance or a decision which shocks the conscience of the court are some of the prime requisit·es for the grant of special leave.('') [Ujagar Singh & Anr. v. State (Delhi Admn.) J Bearing this policy in mind, coupled with the efficacy of concurrent findings of fact, we decline the request for leave even assuming there are some improbabilities in the prosecution case or errors in the con current holdings. In this view, we do not examine the merits further but insist on clarifying the two larger questions lying half-hidden. No observations made by us should be understood as affecting the pdi tioner's plea in any other criminal case he may be facing. The Sessions Court. having found a university professor guilty of organising (abortively, though) a scheme of making bogus degrees suddenly slumped at the sentencing stage and, awarded a single day's simple imprisonment. The reasons given are symptomatic of chaotic sentencing and confusion about the correctional orientation of punish ment. The court observed : "Accused is a young man. He has no previous convic- tion. He has a good family background. His father was a Depuiy Collector and Magistrate in the Mysore State. He (1) Order in SLP (Cr!. No. 1319 etc. of 1977 dt. 3 t-7-1978 (unreported cr>.se) , .. M. H. HOSKOT v. MAHARASHTRA (Krishna Iyer, !.) 199 struck me as having intelligence above the average. He is not a person with a criminal tendency. It is suggested by the teamed P.P. thab possibly accused did this in a fit of des paration as he was given notice of discharge by Saurashtra lJ niversity regarding his Readership in Mathe matics. The modem emphasis on the corrective aspect of punishment cannot be ignored in this case while determin ing the adequacy of sentence, having regard to the nature of the offence and the background of the accused, I think that I should give one chance for the accused to improve. Hence [ do not think it desirable to send him to jail as he might return as a confirmed criminal, which may be a If, on the other hand, mercy is liability to the society. shown to him at this stage of his first imp_act with justice, then it is probable that he may be reclaimed as a good citizen In view who can harness his talent for desirable activities. of this I propose to pass the following order to which the learned Sp/. Public Prosecutor has no objection ....... . Substantive sentences of one day S.I. to run concurrently. (emphasis added) A c It is sul'prising that the Public Prosecutor has consented, on behalf of the State, to this unsocial softness to an anti-social offender on con sternly view viction for grave charges. Does the Administration white-collar offenders, or abet them by agreeing to award of punishment, making elaborate trials mere tremendous trifles ? Social defence is the criminological foundation of punishment. The trial judge has confused between correctional approach to prison treat ment and nominal punishment verging on decriminalisation of serious social offences. The first is basic, the second pathetic. That Court which ignores the grave injury to society implicit in economic crimes by the upper-berth 'mafia' ill serves social justice. Soft sentencing justice is gross injustice where many innocents are the potential vic It is altogether a different thing to insist on therapeutic treat tims. (even inent, hospital setting and correctional goals inside the prison punctuated by parole, opportunities for welfare work, meditational normalisation and healthy self-expression), so that the convict may be human.iscd and, on release, rehabilitated as a safe citizen. This Court has explained the correctional strategy of punishment in Giasuddin's case('). Coddling is not correctional, any more than torture is de~er­ rent. While iatrogenic prison terms are bad because they delrumamze, (!) Mohammad Giamddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh, [1978] I S.C.R. 153. G H. ' A B c D E F G H 200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1979] I sc.u. it is functional failure and judicial pathology to hold out a benignly self-defeating non-sentence to deviants who endanger the morals and morale, the health and wealth of society. The 4 7th Report of the Law Commission of India noticed this weakness for economic offenders in the judicial personnel (of course, also in the administrative and legislative actors) and recommended : "18.2. Suggestions are often made that in order that the lower Magistracy may realise the seriousness of some of the social and economic offences, some method should be evolved of making the judiciary conscious of the grave damage caused to the country's economy and health by such anti-social crimes. The frequency and emphasis with which these sug gestions have been made, and the support which they have received from very high officers has caused some anxiety to us. But we hope that the higher courts are fully alive to the harm, and we have no doubt that on appropriate occa sions, such as, judicial conferences, the subject will receive It is of utmost importance that all State instru attention. mentalities involved in the investigation, prosecution and trial of these offences must be oriented to the philosophy which treats these economic Qffences as a source of grave challenge to the material wealth of the nation.

18.3. We hope we shall not be misunderstood if we sug gest that even the holding of periodical meetings on sentenc ing may be beneficial, not in the context of economic offences only, but in the evolution of a rational and consistent policy of sentencing. Experience of England is, by now, familiar to those interested in the subject. A meeting of over 100 judges was held in the Royal Courts of Justice in London on January 7-8, 1965 to take part in exercises designed to increase the uniformity 1\f sen tencing. The Lord Chief Justice expressed the hope that the meeting would be a model for similar ones throughout the country. Conferences between judges, magistrates and penal ad ministrators are, in England, organised with increasing fre quency in nwny parts of the country with an annual confe rence. in London for judges of the Supreme Courts.

18.4. Besides holding councils on sentencing, it may be worthwhile to hold "workshops' which would be less formal • • • ( " M. H. HOSKOT v. MAHARASHTRA (Krishna Iyer, J.) 20 I but equally useful and likely to give concrete results. Such workshops could, for example, be attended by all Special Judges or other officers concerned with economic offences. A National courses on sentencing strategies vis-a-vis social justice is a neglected cause and the Administration is, as yet, 'innocent' of imperative need. B The second profound issue, thrown up accidentally by Dr. Hoskot's sojourn in the Yeravada jail, disturbs us more because less capable men-most prisoners in this country belong to the lower, illiterate bracket-suffer silent deprivation of liberty caused by unreasonable- · ness, arbitrariness and unfair procedures behind the 'stone walls' and 'iron bars'. c Freedom is what freedom does, and here we. go straight to Art. 21 of the Constitution, where the guarantee of personal liberty is phrased with superb amplitude : Art. 21 : Protection of life and personal liberty : - D No person shall. be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. (emphasis added) . 'Procedure established by law' are words of deep meaning for all lovers of liberty and judicial sentinds. Amplified, activist fashion, · 'proce dure' means 'fair and reasonable procedure' which comports with civilised norms like natural justice rooted firm in community cons ciousness,-not primitive processual barbarity nor legislated norma tive mockery. In a !and-mark case, Maneka Gandhi('), Bhagwati, J. (on this point the Court was unanimous) explained : "Does Article 21 merely require that there must be some arbitrary or fanciful. semblance of procedure, howsoever prescribed by law before a person can be deprived of his personal liberty or that the procedure must satisfy certain requisites iil the sense that it must be fair and reasonable ? Article 21 occurs in Part III of the Constitution whith con fers certain fundamental rights". "Is the prescription of some sort of procedure enough or must the procedure comply with any particular require ments ? Obviously, the procedure cannot be arbitrary, un fair or unreasonable. This indeed was conceded by the learned Attorney General who with his usual candour frankly (l) [1978] l sec 248 at 277, 281 and 284. 14-520 SCI/78 E F G H , • • 202 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1979) 1 S.C.R. A B c D E G II stated that it was not possible for him to contend that any procedure howsoever arbitrary, oppressive or unjust may be prescribed by the law." "The principle of reasonableness, which legally ·as well as philosophically, is al) essential clement of equality or non arbitrariness pervades Article 14 like a brooding omnipre sence and the procedure contemplated by Article 21 must answer the test of reasonableness in order to be in confor It must be "right and just and fair" mity with Article 14. and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive; otherwise it would be no procedure at all and the requirement of Article 21 would not be satisfied. Auy procedure which permits impairment of the consti tutional right to go abroad without giving reasonable oppor tunity to show cause cannot but be condemned as unfair and unjust and hence, there. is in the present case clear infringe ment of the requirement of Article 21". One of us in his separate opinion there observed ( 1) "Procedure established by law", with its lethal potentia lity, will reduce life and liberty to a precarious plaything if we do not ex necessitate import into those weighty words an adjectival rule of law, civilised in its soul, fair in its heart and fixing those imperatives of procedural protection ab sent which the processual tail will wag the substantive head. Can the sacred essence of the human right to secure which the struggle for liberation, with 'do or die' patriotism, was launched be sapped by formalistic and pharisaic prescrip tions, regardless of essential standards ? An enacted appari tion is a constitutional illusion. Processual justice is writ patently on Article 21. Procedure which deals with the modalities of regulating, restricting or even rejecting a fundamental right falling with in Article 21 has to be fair, not foolish, carefully designed to effectuate, not to subvert,. the substantive right itself. Thus understood, 'procedure' must rule out anything arbi trary, freakish or bizarre. A valuable constitutional right can be canalised only by civilired process .... What is funda mental is life a.nd liberty. What is procedural is the manner (!) Per Krishna Iyer, J. at 337, 338. • -1 ! • • < ' • M. H. HOSKOT v. MAHARASHTRA (Krishna Iyer, !.) 203 of its exercise. This q>rnlity of fairness in the process is emphasised by the strong word 'established' which means If it is rooted 'settled firmly' not wantonly or whimsically. it becomes in the legal consciousness of 'established' procedure. And 'law' leaves little .doubt that it is normae regarded as just since law is the means and justice is the end. the community Procedural safeguards are the indispensable essence of liberty. In fact, the history of personal liberty is largely the history of procedural safeguards and right to a hearing has a human-right ring. In India, because of poverty and illite racy, t11e people are unable to protect and defend their rights; observance of fundamental rights is not regarded as good politics and their transgression as bad politics. To sum up, 'procedure' in Article 21 means fair, not 'Law' is reasonable law, not any enacted formal procedure. piece." One component of fair procedure is natural justice. Gene rally speaking and subject to just exceptions, at least a sin)!le right of appeal on facts, where criminal conviction is fraught with long loss of liberty is basic to civilised jurisprudence. procedure, natural justice and normative universality save in special cases like the original tribunal being a high bench sitting on a colle giate basis. High Court, as provided in the Criminal Procedure Code, manifests this value upheld in Art. 21. In short, a first appeal from the Sessions Court to integral to It is the appellate What follows from imperative? Every step that makes the right of appeal fruitful is obligatory and ~very action or in action which stultifies it is unfair and, ergo, unconstitutional (In a sense, even Art. 19 may join hands with Art. 21, as the Maneka Gandhi reasoning discloses). Pertinent to the point before us are two requirements : (1) service of a copy of judgment to the prisoner in time to file an appeal and (ii) provision of free legal ser vices to a prisoner who is indigent or otherwise disabled from secur ing legal assistance where the ends of justice call for such service. Both these are State responsibilities under Art. 2 l. Where tl1e procedural law provides for furtlier appeals what we have said regarding first appeals will similarly apply. A B c D E F G In the present case there is something dubious about the delivery H of the copy of the judgment by the Jailer to the prisoner. A simple proof of such delivery is the latter's written acknowledgment. Any A B c D E F G H 204 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1979] 1 S.C.R. jailor who, by indifference or vendetta, withholds the copy thwarts the court process and violates Art. 21, and may pave the way for holding the further imprisonment illegal. We hope that Jail Manuals will be updated to include the mandate, if there be any omission, and deviant jail o1!icials punished. And courts, when prison sentence is imposed, will make available a copy of the judgment if he is straight marched into the prison. All the obligations we have specificated are neces sarily implied in the right of appeal conferred by the Code read with the commitment to grocedural fairness in Art. 21. Section 363 of the Cr. P. Code is an activist expression,' of this import of Art. 21 and is inviolable. We say no more because we have condoned the defay in the present case although it is pathetic that for want of a copy of judgment the leave is sought after the sentence has boon served out. The other ingredient of fair procedure to a prisoner, who has to seek his liberation through the court process is lawyer's services. Judi cial justice, with procedural intricacies, legal submissions and critical examination of evidence, leans upon professional expertise; and a failure of equal justice under the law is on the cards where such sup portive skill is absent for one side. Our judicature, moulded by Anglo-American models and our judicial process, engineered by kindred legal technology, compel the collaboration of lawyer-power for steering the wheels of equal justice nuder the law. Free legal ser vices to the ueedy is part of the English criminal justice system. And the American jurist, Prof. Vance of Yale, sounded sense for India too when he said(l) : "What does it profit a poor and ignorant man that he is . equal to his strong antagonist before the law if there is no one to inform him what the law is ? Or that the courts are open to him on the same terms as to all other persons the admission when he has not the wherewithal to pay fee?" Gideon's trumpet has been heard across the Atlantic. Black, J. there observed(') : "Not only those precedents but also reason and reflec tion require us to recognise that in our adversary system of criminal justice, any person haled into court who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him. to us to be an obvious truth. Governments, both State and Federal, quite This seems I (1) Justice and Reform, Earl Johnson. Jr. p. 11. (2) Processual Justice to the People (Ivfay, 1973) p. 69. • ( .. M. H. HOSKOT v. MAHARASHTRA (Krishna Iyer, J.) 205 properly spend vast sums of money to ·establish machinery to try defendants accused of crime. Lawyers to prosecnte are everywhere deemed essential to protect the public's interest in an orderly society. Similarly, there are few defen dants charged with crime who fail to hire the best lawyers they can get to prepare and present their defences. That government hires lawyers to prooecute and defencfants who have the money hire lawyers to defend are the strongest indications of the widespread belief that lawyers in crimi nal courts are necessities, not luxuries. The right of one charged with crime to counsel may not be deemed funda mental and essential to fair trials in some countries, but is in ours. From the very beginning, our state and national constitutions and laws have laid great emphasis on proce dural and substantive safeguards designed to assure fair trials before impartial tribunals in which every defendant stands equal before the law. This noble idea cannot be · realised if the poor man charged with crime has to face his accusers without a lawyer to assist him". The philooophy of legal aid as an inalienable element of fair pro cedure is evident from Mr. Justice Brennan's(') well-known words: "Nothing rankles more in the human heart than a brood Illness we can put up with. But ing sense of injustice. injustice makes us want to pull things down. When only the rich can enjoy the law, as a doubtful luxury, and the poor, who need it most, cannot have it because its expense puts it beyond their reach, the threat to the continued exis tence of free democracy is not imaginary but very real, be cause democracy's very life depends upon making the machi nery of jus!ice so effecfr.~e that every citizen shall believe in and benefit by its impartiality and fairness". A B c D E p • More recently, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Raymond Hamlin ha8 extended this processual facet of Poverty Jurisprudence. Douglas, J . there explicated (2) : G "The right to be heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be heard by counsel. Even the intelligent and educated layman has If small and sometimes no skill in the science of law. H (I) Legal aid and Legal Education p. 94. (2) United States Supreme Court Reports, Vol. 32. p. 530. J 206 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1979] l s.r;.R. charged with cri; llle, he is incapable, generally, of determin· ing for himself whether the indictment is good or bad. He is µnfamiliar with the rules of evidence. Left without the aid of counsel he may be put on trial without a proper charge, and convicted upon incompetent evidence, or evi dence irrelevant to the. issue or otherwise inadmissible. He lacks both the skill and knowledge a~equately to prepare his defense, even though he have a perfect one. He re quires the gµiding hand of counsel at every step in the pro ceedings against him. Without it, though he be not guilty, he faces the danger of cooviction because he doe.~ not know . If that be true of men of how to establish his innocence. i11te;//jge11ce, how much more true is it of the ignorant and illiterate or those of feeble intellect." The right of O)le charged with crime to counsel may not be deemed fundamental and essential to fair trials in some countries, but it is in ours. From the very beginning, our laid great state and national constitutions and emphasis on procedural and substantive safeguards designed to assure fair trials before impartial tribunals in which every defendant stands equal before the law. This noble cannot be realized if the poor man charged with crime has to face his accusers without a lawyer to assist him. 372 US at 344. 9 L Ed' 2d at 805, 93, ALR 2d 733. laws have c D E Both Powell and Gideon involved felonies. But their rationale has relevance to any criminal trial, where an accused is deprived of his liberty. The court sh®ld consider the probable sentence that will follow if a convi, ction is 01'/Bined. The more serious the likely consequences, the greater i6 the probability that a lawyer should be appointed . ... The court should consider the individual factors peculiar to each case. These, of course, would be the most difficult to anticipate. One rele- vant factor would be the competency of the individual defendant present his own case. G (Jon Richard Argersinger v. Raymond Hamlin ( 407 US (Emphasis added) 25 32L Ed 2d 530 at 535-36 and 554. The American Bar Association has upheld the f1111damental pre H mise that counsel should be provided in the criminal proceedings for offences punishable by loss of liberty, except those types of offence!> for which such punishment is not likely to be imposed. Thus in • • M. H. HOSKOT v. MAHARASHTRA (Krishna Iyer, J.) 20 7 the Powell, Gideon and Hamlin cases, A America, strengthened by counsel for the accused in the more serious c]J!.ss of cases which threaten a person with imprisonment is regarded as an essential com ponent of the admin.istratio.n of criminal justice and as part of proce dural fair-play. This is so without regard to the Vlth amendment be cause lawyer participation is ordinarily an assurance that deprivation B of liberty will not be in violation of procedure c;stablished by Jaw. In short, it is the warp and woof of fair procedure in a sophisticated, legalistic system plus indigents aplenty. The Indian socio-legal milieu makes free legal service, at trial and higher levels, an imperative processual piece of criminal justice where deprivation of life or persQn~l liberty hangs in the judicial balance. illiterate · c The widespread insistence on free legal assistance, where liberty is in jeopardy, is obvious f~om the Universal Declaration of Huinan Rights: Art. 8. Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the funda mental rights granted by the Constitution or by law. Art. 14(3) of tht; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights guarantees to everyone : "the right to be tried in, his presence, and to defend him self in person or through legal assistance of his own choos ing; to be informed, if he does not have legal assistance, of his right; and to have legal assistance assigned to him in any case where the interests of justice shall require, and without paY!llent by him in any such case if he does not have sufficient means to pay for it." Many high-level Indian Committees and Commissions have emphasised the free legal service desideratum as integral to processual fair-play for prisoners. For example, one such committee has stated( 1) :

#93. Prisoners, men and women, regardless of means, are a peculiarly handicapped class. The morbid cell which con fines them walls th~ off from the world outside. Legal remedies, civil and criminal, are often beyond their physical and even financial reach unless legal aid is available within the prison as is provided in some States in India and in other countries. Without legal aid, petitions of appeal, appli cations for commutation or parole, bail motions and claims ( 1) Processual Justice to the People May, 1973, p. 34. D E F G H ., t ·i, - • ) 208 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1979] 1 S.C. R, A for administrative benefits would be well-nigh impossible. There is a case for systematised and extensive assistance through legal aid lawyers to our prison population. The Central Government is evolving a comprehensive programme while many States already have fragmentary schemes. B It needs no argument to drive home this point, now that Art. 39A, a fundamental constitutional directive, states : · 39A. Equal Justice and free legal aid. The ~tate shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, on a basis of equal opportunity, and shall, in particular, provide free legal aid, by suitable legislation or schemes or in any other way, to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citi zen by reason of economic or other disabilities. (emphasis added). This article is an interpretative tool for Art. 21. Partial statutory implementation of the mandate is found in Sec. 304, Cr. P. Code, and in 0th.er situations courts cannot be inert in the face of Art. 21 and 39A. We may follow up the import of Maneka Gandhi and crystallise the conclusion. Maneka Gandhi's case bas laid down that personal liberty cannot be. cut out or cut down without fair legal procedure. Enough bas been set out to establish that a prisoner, deprived of bis freedom by court sentence but entitled to appeal against such verdict, can claim, as part of his protection under Art. 21 and as implied in bis statutory right to appeal, the necessary concomitant of right to counsel to prepare and argue his appeal. If· a prisoner sentenced to imprisonment, is virtually unable to exercise his constitutional and statutory right of appeal, inclusive of special leave to appeal, for want of legal assistance, there is implicit in the Court under Art. 142, read with 1Arts. 21, and 39.A, of the Consti tution, power to assign counsel for such imprisoned individual doing complete justice. This is a necessary incident of the right of appeal conferred by the Code and allowed by Art. 136 of the Con stitution. The inference is inevitable that this is a State's duty and not government's charity. Eq~ally affirmative is the implication that while legal services must be free to the beneficiary, the lawyer himself has to be reasonably remunerated f.OC bis services. Surely, the pro fession bas a public commitment to the people but mere philanthropy of its members yields short mileage in the long run. Their services, c D E F G H .. • M. H. HOSKOT v. MAHARASHTRA (Krishna Iyer, J.) 209 especially when they are on behalf of the State, must be paid for. Naturally, the State concerned must pay a reasonable sum that conrt may fix when assigning counsel to the prisoner. Of course, the court may judge the situation and consider from all angles whether it is necessary for the ends of justice to make available legal aid in In every country where free legal services are the particular case. given it is not done in all cases but only where public justice suffers otherwise. That discretion resides in the court . In the present petition, the party, though pro'.erred legal aid by the court, preferred . to argue himself. Even so we uphold the right to counsel not in the permissive sense of Art. 22 ( 1) and its wider am plitude but in the peremptory sense of Art. 21 confined to prison ~ituations. While dismissing the Special Leave Petition we declare the legal position to put ii beyond doubt :

#1. Courts shall forthwith furnish a free transcript of the judgment when sentencing a person to prison term; A n c D

#2. In the event of any such copy being sent to the jail authorities for delivery to the prisoner, by the appellate, revisional or other court; the official concerned shall, with quick despatch, get it delivered to the sentence and obtain written acknowledgment ~ thereof from · E

#3. Where the prisoner seeks to file an appeal or revision, every facility for exercise of that right shall be made available by the Jail Administration.

#4. Wh~re the prisoner is disabled from engaging a lawyer, on reasonable grounds such as indigence or incommunicado situation, the Conrt shall, if the circumstances of the case, the gravity of sentence, and the ends of justice so require, assign competent counsel imp 01 pgfqo iou sgop A:piid gq1 pgpJAOrd 'rougJgp s,rguosird gql roJ lawyer; F

#5. The State which prosecuted the prisoner and set in motion the process which deprived him of his liberty shall pay to assigned coun sel such sum as the court may equitably fix. G

#6. These benign prescriptions force of Art. 21 [strengthened by Art. 19(1) (d}] read with sub-article (5) from the lowest to the highest court where deprivation of life and personal liberty is in substantial peril. "perate by H -S.R. J'etition dismissed. .. t ~·· )