Case Commentary: Madhav Hayawadanrao v. State of Maharashtra

India has an elevated percentage of illiterate people, and as a result, a large percentage of its citizens are unaware of the legal framework and their rights enshrined under the constitution. Due to their respective positions, economic and social backwardness, individuals who are cognizant of their judicial system and fundamental freedoms and rights are unable to exercise them. In the event that their rights are violated, these individuals are powerless and incapable of retaining legal representation since it has grown to be an expensive issue. In order to provide free legal assistance to the various sectors of the people, the Indian Parliament added Article 39-A of the Indian Constitution by enacting the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution in 1976.

Legal support and assistance are the provision wherein free legal aid is provided to the most vulnerable members of country who are unable to pay for a lawyer of their own to represent them in court proceedings or other legal proceedings before judicial bodies or courts of law. The Indian Constitution also mentions free legal aid services in Article 39A, which stipulates that the government must guarantee that the judicial system operates on the principle of equal opportunity and has to provide free legal help in order to guarantee that no individual is excluded from access to justice due to financial hardship or any other disablement.

The Constitution of India also contains a number of additional articles, such as Article 14 on equality before the law, which declares that nobody who is a citizen of India will be denied equal protection under the law or equality before the law, which are both important for promoting justice based on the principle of equal opportunity for all. The Preamble of the Constitution of India also strives to provide political, economic, and social equality for all segments of Indian population. According to Article 38(1) of the Indian Constitution, it is the responsibility of the government to contribute to the welfare of the populace by upholding and defending justice. Additionally, it is the responsibility of the government to create the necessary laws or strategies to ensure that the right to justice is not withheld due to a financial hardship or any other disability.

Legal aid, in the words of Justice P.N. Baghwati, means offering a framework within the community in order to ensure judicial system turns into a missionary which is readily available and remains within grasp and reach for all those individuals who are forced to turn to the judicial system for the purpose of getting enforced their rights which have been provided to them by law. The poor and illiterate deserve to be in a position wherein they can seek assistance from judicial system and their lack of knowledge shouldn't pose a hindrance in their ability to seek justice from judicial system. The impoverished and ignorant ought to be given opportunity to receive legal assistance since they are unable to take recourse from the judicial system. To obtain assistance through legal aid, the individual does not have to be a party to a lawsuit.[1]

Legal assistance, to put it simply, is the provision of legal help for free to the underprivileged populace who are unable to hire an attorney for their representation in a lawsuit or legal action in a court of law, tribunal, or in front of a higher authority. As it is protected by Articles 21 and 39-A of the Indian Constitution, right to free legal aid is a constitutional right.

In India, the significance of legal support and assistance has been demonstrated through the landmark decision in the case of Madhav Hayawadanrao Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra.[2] The promotion of justice founded on equal opportunities for everyone is aided by this case commentary. For acknowledging this landmark judgment in this backdrop, let us look at the background of the case:

All aspects, importance, and the necessity of enhancing human existence have been factored while the constitution of India was being written. The freedoms, rights and duties of every person remained the primary consideration throughout every aspect of the same. Justice and the freedom of living life how a person chooses to are fundamental human rights. Free legal help and assistance are significant concerns that, in the early phases of the Constitution's drafting, failed to be sufficiently dealt with in the document. Several cases involving the pre-eminence of rights have been tried, and decisions have been made.

The Bench remarked that, proactively taking into account the historical precedent established in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India[3]and Articles 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution as they were brought into effect in that case, an impartial and equitable judicial system is an essential component of every Indian citizen's fundamental right to personal liberty. As a result, the case that we are about to discuss has made history by establishing critical importance of providing convicts, criminals and other indigent or poor individuals with free legal counsel and help.

The Courts are authorised to assign an advocate for a person in jail in accordance with Articles 142 read with Articles 21 and 39-A of the Indian Constitution in order to guarantee that full justice is carried out in the event that the person who is in prison serving a sentence of being imprisoned finds it impossible to take advantage of his statutory or constitutional right to file an appeal before the Higher Court, which includes his entitlement to special permission to make an appearance before the Court.[4] Subsequently, a number of cases addressing the rights granted to prisoners and their right to live with dignity in the jail have been examined, such as Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar4. However, the M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra case (1978) might answer the core concerns in all of these following cases.

International Background:

UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights –

This treaty supports providing impoverished persons with free legal representation during court proceedings. Whereas the Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, that deals with equality before the law, is of the view that people who are unable to comprehend or communicate in the dialect of the judicial system are entitled to legal assistance. The Indian Constitution also contains a number of guidelines that the United Nations has accepted for its legal aid programmes.[5]

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in Articles 8 and 10 provides that all people have a right to an enforceable remedy by the appropriate national tribunals for acts which infringe the fundamental rights that have been enshrined by the Constitution or the law as a whole, and additionally that all people possess the right in full equality to be heard impartially and publicly before any court of law before any legal action is taken.[6]

Adjudicating Authority in this case is the Supreme Court of India because the High Court passed it judgment and the copy of that judgment was furnished to the Petitioner after four years from the date of which the judgement by passed by High Court.

The Petitioner has filed a Special Leave Petition (Criminal) before the Supreme Court of India under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

The petitioner, Dr. Madhav Hartawdanrao Hoskot, 30 years old was working as a Reader at Saurashtra University who maintained to be a M.Sc and Ph.D holder. He went to Mr. Dabhokar, a block-maker in Bombay, and asked him to prepare a stamping seal in the name of the Karnataka University, Dharwar, omitting to mention a letter of authority that he claimed was signed by the vice chancellor's personal assistant at the aforementioned university and gave him permission to have the seals made.

The Block Maker provided the police with preventative information that allowed the criminal scheme to be discovered in time. When they arrived, the police detained Sr. M. H. Hoskot. The petitioner was put on trial by the Court of Sessions, and it was determined that the charges are made against him under Sections 417, 511, 467, 468, 471, 467 of the Indian Penal Code which had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, the Trial Court only imposed a light sentence of simple imprisonment up until the Court’s rising and a small fine on the grounds that he came from a middle-class family that the public prosecutor had no issues with the light sentence, and that modern emphasis on the corrective aspect of punishment cannot be ignored. There were two appeals filed against the Court of Sessions’ ruling.

The petitioner in the case (M H Hoskot v. The State of Maharashtra), M.H. Hoskot, filed one appeal against the conviction and in agreement with the State’s request for enhancement, asked for the imposition of three years of rigorous imprisonment. The 1973 High Court ruling was rendered in opposition to the three-year sentence of rigorous imprisonment.

The High Court provided a copy of the judgement from 1973 for him through the Superintendent, Yaravada Central Prison, Pune, but the document was never delivered to him, according to the petitioner’s justification for the delay. Additionally, there is nothing in the records that shows his signatures being obtained upon receiving the High Court's ruling.

After imprisonment of four years, the petitioner filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of India through SLP in 1974. The High Court did not send the petitioner a copy of the decision until 1978, which is what caused the delay. The petitioner’s right to justice has been infringed.

• Sections 417, 467,468, 471, and 511 of Indian Penal Code (IPC).
• Section 304 and 363 Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
• Articles 19, 21, 22, 136, 142, 39-A of the Constitution of India

According to Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, all the individuals are entitled to the right to freedom regardless of their colour, caste, or gender. However, these freedoms are only available to Indian citizens and shareholders of corporations who have established their registered offices in India.[7]

The right to equality is included in Article 21, which is considered a basic right, of the Constitution of India. This right includes protections against discrimination and equality in law. Discriminating against anyone who is a citizen of India is prohibited, regardless of that person’s gender, caste, colour, creed, or religion. Additionally, it is a fundamental right which is unalienable as it cannot be infringed upon. Article 21 is treated to be violated if this fundamental right is infringed.[8]

Article 22 offers protection against unjustified arrests, detentions and imprisonment.[9]

In accordance with Article 39-A, the government is required to guarantee that its administration of the judicial system encourages justice on the basis of equal opportunities and, especially, the government is obligated to offer legal assistance at no cost by means of suitable laws or programmes or via any other manner that helps to make sure the fact that no person who is the citizen of India is deprived of the chance to obtain justice due to their economic circumstances or other limitations.[10]

Any judgement, decree, determination, sentence, or order rendered by any court or tribunal in the India in any cause or matter may be appealed with special leave, at the Supreme Court's autonomy; in accordance with Article 136. This has been referred to as the “Special Leave Petition” (SLP).[11]

In the present case, issues before Supreme Court were:

• Whether the Special Leave Petition that has been filed by the Petitioner is maintainable before the Supreme Court of India or not?
• Whether the right to free legal assistance and support, that has been enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, should be accessible to the convicts and the people who have been imprisoned?

The Petitioner was Dr. Madhav Hartawdanrao Hoskot. Learned counsel for the Petitioner was Shri H. R. Khanna.

On behalf of the Petitioner, the counsel made following submissions:

1. On December 10, 1973, the petitioner asked the prison administrators to furnish him with a certified copy of the High Court's decision in accordance with Sections 363(2) and 387 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Despite the fact that the judgment had been obtained by the prison administration, that certified copy of the verdict was never given to the petitioner.
2.  The petitioner had no choice but to file a petition for condonation upon getting a second certified copy from the High Court since the petitioner missed out on his right to file an appeal through a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court of India due to the failure in furnishing the certified copy of the judgment to the Petitioner.
3. On the register which is maintained by the court for receiving the certified copy of the judgement, the petitioner's signature was absent. consequently, it is clear and readily apparent that the petitioner was never provided with a copy of the judgement.

Respondents was State of Maharashtra. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent was Shri M. N. Shroff. On behalf of Respondent, the counsel refuted Plaintiff’s claim and made following submissions:

1. His client wasn’t to blame for the obstruction or postponement in delivering the copy of the judgment to the Petitioner.
2. An employee from the office actually handed over the petitioner’s copy of the High Court judgement after it had been sent by courier. Later on, however, it was withdrawn back from Petitioner on the basis of the fact that this certified copy of the judgment needed to be accompanied with an appeal for compassion to the governor to commute the prison sentence of the Petitioner.

In the instant case, the issue of free legal services was addressed and determined to be a part of the Indian Constitution. In this case, the petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition because he did not receive the judgement until four years had passed since the High Court’s decision.

The Bench of Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer; Justice D.A. Desai and Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy rejected the petitioner’s Special Leave Petition due to its inability to weigh in on the concurrent decisions of the two lower courts. The Court elaborated on Article 21 in this particular case.

The Court used the Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India case as an illustration of how crucial fair judicial procedures are to Article 21. The right to appeal is a part of the fair legal process, and it entails two crucial steps: serving the prisoner with a copy of the judgement in time for him to appeal, as well as providing legal assistance for free to a prisoner who is indigent or is otherwise unable to get representation from a lawyer. Article 21 of the Constitution lays out the State's two responsibilities.

Freedom is a product of freedom. The Constitution's Article 21 guarantees individual freedom. Procedure means “fair and reasonable procedure”, and the phrase “procedure established by law” has deep meaning.

A fair procedure is what is meant by the Article 21 procedure. This value is manifested by a first appeal from the Sessions Court to the High Court, as allowed by the Criminal Procedure Code.

Articles 19 read with Article 21, as in the case of Maneka Gandhi, spelt out that personal liberty cannot be restricted without following fair legal procedures.

The prisoner must receive a copy of the verdict before they can appeal. Additionally, when the interests of justice require it, free legal services may be provided to a prisoner who is indigent or otherwise unable to obtain legal representation. And according to Article 21, the State has these obligations.

Article 142, 194 read with Articles 21 and 39A of the Constitution’s power to appoint a lawyer for the imprisoned individual “for doing full justice” implies in the Court if a prisoner who has been convicted to prison is basically unable to make use of his constitutional and statutory right of appeal, which includes special permission to make an appearance for lack of legal assistance. Additionally, Article 136 of the Constitution permits this.

The accused is entitled to legal representation, but not in the permissive sense of Article 22 (1) and its wider application, but rather in the mandatory sense of Article 21 limited to situations involving incarceration.

The management of the prison is going to render all facilities accessible for the exercise of that right when the prisoner wishes to file an appeal or review.

The Court cannot depart from the special leave petition sought under Article 136 so that the never-ending pursuit of justice for each unsuccessful litigant, whether civil or criminal, overwhelms it and causes dysfunction.

The appellant was free from the financial pressure to support himself through illegal means. It is therefore unexpected that the Public Prosecutor would have approved of a light conviction sentence for the serious offences in the name of the State.

White-collar offenders should be treated seriously by the administration, and they shouldn't be helped by accepting a token punishment. The trial court in this instance confused the nominal punishment for serious social offences with the correctional approach to prison treatment.

Since the Supreme Court is the final court of appeal, each party requests that the Court exercise special care.

Punishment's criminological foundation is the social defence. The trial judge in this case failed to distinguish between the correctional approach to incarceration treatment and minimal punishment as serious social crimes were about to be decriminalised.

The decision in M.H. Hoskot v. the State of Maharashtra is applied and used as the precedent in a number of instances. It established the right to free legal representation for prisoners under Article 21 of the Constitution for the first time in India. Prisoner rights legislation is constantly being developed.

The legal system has made an effort to both uphold and partially recognise the convict's fundamental rights. If a person is found guilty of a crime, their legal status is not altered to that of a non-person. The entitlement to obtain free legal representation for an accused person who has received a prison sentence has thus been established. Additionally, jail staffs are obligated to help an accused in practising his right to make an appeal, and courts must always give an accused a free copy of the verdict when imposing a sentence.

The rationale provided in the instant case has been demonstrated in numerous cases and is now considered to be established law.

In the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India,[12] it was stated that personal liberties weren't subject to limitation without following the proper legal processes.

In the case of Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar,[13] the Supreme Court emphasised the importance of the right to free legal representation under Article 21 for anyone accused of a crime. The court also discussed the need for under trial prisoners to have their cases heard quickly.

In the case of Khatri and ors v. State of Bihar and ors,[14] the Court ruled that the State had a statutory duty to give an accused person free legal representation because of the fact that he could not afford it and also because the State must take care of all other requirements for this purpose. The State will have its budgetary restrictions and spending priorities, but the law forbids any government from denying its citizens their constitutional rights on the grounds of poverty.

In this case, the Supreme Court further noted that it was unfortunate that, in spite of declaring the right to obtain legal assistance as a basic element of fundamental right of an accused person by the procedure of judicial establishment of Article 21, the majority of the States in the nation did not take into account of this decision and stipulated it. Judge Blackmun has said that:

“Humanitarian factors and constitutional constraints shouldn’t be weighed on this day by considerations in dollars.”

Justice P. N. Bhagwati emphasised the need for legal assistance in the case of Suk Das v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh[15] and also indicated to build awareness for legal knowledge for the less fortunate section of society as they are not aware of the rights that are provided to them, specifically with reference to free legal assistance. He also noted that majority of the people who are living in rural areas are illiterate and are unaware of their inherent legal rights granted to them by law. It is the fact that even the people who are literate are not aware of their rights. Therefore, in order to address the public's ignorance, it is crucial to raise awareness among them and make legal advice easily accessible.

The petitioner in the case of Madhav Hayawadanrao Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra was found guilty under Sections 417, 467, 471, and 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and was sentenced to a fine and simple life imprisonment until the court's rising. Following that, the State and the petitioner each filed one petition with the High Court.

The petitioner's request was denied by the High Court, which also extended the sentence to three years. Through a Special Leave Petition, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court in 1978. Nevertheless, the High Court’s ruling was rendered in 1973. This delay resulted from the petitioner receiving the copy of the judgement after it was supposed to. The Supreme Court considered it appropriate to discuss and emphasise the availability of free legal aid and assistance despite dismissing the Special Leave Petition.

The case goes beyond just addressing the status of free legal aid and assistance in India. In our opinion, it also discusses the prisoner’s right to appeal, the authorities’ obligations to provide copies of the judgement, and the State’s

Picture Source :