Appellants – Supreme Court Legal aid Committee Vs. Union of India and Others.
EmailAppeal: Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 312 of 1994 ,
With
Writ Petition (C) No. 637 of 1997
With
Writ Petition (C) No. 637 of 1997
Petitioner: Appellants – Supreme Court Legal aid Committee
Respondent: Union of India and Others.
Apeal: Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 312 of 1994 ,
With
Writ Petition (C) No. 637 of 1997
With
Writ Petition (C) No. 637 of 1997
Judges: S.C. AGRAWAL , K. VENKATASWAMI & V.N. KHARE , JJJ.
Date of Judgment: Nov 25, 1997
Head Note:
LEGAL AID
Rules not framed by some of the States/Union Territories – High Court Legal Aid Service Committees also not constituted by several States for want of framing of regulations .
Rules not framed by some of the States/Union Territories – High Court Legal Aid Service Committees also not constituted by several States for want of framing of regulations .
Ordered that relevant Rules and Regulations be framed and com-pliance report be submitted . Orders to be issued to all States and Union Territories . ( Para 5 , 7 , 8 )
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1 . In pursuance of the direction contained in the order dated 12-8-1997 , the petitioner has filed an application for amendment of the writ petition . The said application is allowed and the amendments sought are permitted to be made . Shri Muralidhar , the learned counsel for the petitioner , will file the amended copy of the writ petition within two weeks .
2 . In pursuance of the directions contained in the order dated 14-10-1997 , an affidavit of Shri Bir Singh , Under – Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Law and Justice has been filed on behalf of the Union of India . We have perused the said affidavit . It appears that while the provisions of the Act except Chapter III have been extended to all the States vide notification dated 9-11-1995 , the provisions of Chapter III have not been extended to a number of States and Union Territories for the reason that for the purpose of extending the provisions of Chapter III , it is necessary that the State Government/Union Territory Administration concerned should have framed the relev-ant rules under Section 28 of the Act . It has been stated that since rules have not been framed in certain States/Union Territo-ries , provisions of Chapter III have not been extended there .
3 . According to the affidavit of Shri Bir Singh the following States/Union Territories have not framed the rules so far :
1 . Arunachal Pradesh
2 . Kerala
3 . Maharashtra
4 . Nagaland
5 . Tripura
6 . Union Territory of Chandigarh
7 . Union Territory of Daman & Diu
8 . Union Territory of Dadra & Nagar Haveli
9 . Union Territory of Lakshadweep and
10 . Pondicherry
4 . Ms. Kamini Jaiswal , the learned counsel states that rules have been framed for the Union Territory of Chandigarh and have been notified vide notification dated 12-9-1997 .
5 . The provisions of the Act except Chapter III were Extended to all the States and the Union Territories on 9-11-1995 . More than two years have elapsed . The time available was more than sufficient for the State Government and the Union Territories to act and frame rules under Section 28 of the Act . It is directed that the States and the Union Territories which have not framed the rules so far , i.e. , the above-mentioned States/Union Territo-ries excluding the Union Territory of Chandigarh shall frame the relevant rules under Section 28 and notify the same within a period of two months . As soon as the rules are framed , the same shall be duly intimated to the Union Government and the Union Government shall take steps to issue the notification applying the provisions of Chapter III to that State/Union Territory within two weeks from the date of such intimation .
6 . In the amendment application filed by the petitioner it is stated that the High Court Legal Services Committee has not been constituted in a number of States for the reason that the regu-lations which are required to be framed under Section 29-A (sic 29 ) of the Act have not been framed yet . According to the amend-ment application such regulations have not been framed in the States of Gujarat , Mizoram , Uttar Pradesh , Madhya Pradesh , Punjab and Tamil Nadu . It is not clear as to whether the High Court Legal Services Committee has not been constituted in the various States/Union Territories on account of the failure to frame the regulations or even though the regulations have been made but such Committee has not been constituted . Shri Muralidhar states that the averments in the amendment application have been made on the basic of the information that has been supplied by some of the States/Union Territories and that some States/Union Territo-ries have not furnished the necessary information in that regard . It is , therefore , directed that in the States/Union Territories where the High Court Legal Services Committee has not been con-stituted either because of the absence of the regulations or even though the regulations have been made such Committee has not been constituted , the State Government/Union Territory Administration concerned shall frame the regulations and constitute the High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of two months from the date of this order .
7 . There are many States/Union Territories in which in spite of the rules having been framed steps have not been taken to consti-tute the various Committees as contemplated by the Act . The name of some of the State are mentioned in the application for amend-ment submitted by the petitioner but the information is not complete . It is directed that the States/Union Territories in which the various Committees have not been constituted in accor-dance with the rules , the State Government/Union Territory Admin-istration concerned shall constitute the various Committees under the Act within a period of two months .
8 . It is made clear that in the event of failure to comply with these directions contempt proceedings will have to be initiated against the Chief Secretary of the State Government/Union Terri-tory Administration concerned . An affidavit about compliance of these directions shall be filed on behalf of the State Govern-ments/Union Territories by 3-2-1998 .
9 . A copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretaries of all the States/Union Territories .
10 . List on 10.2.1998 .
( Order of 10. 2. 1998 has been reported in JT 1998 (4) SC 320 )
1 . In pursuance of the direction contained in the order dated 12-8-1997 , the petitioner has filed an application for amendment of the writ petition . The said application is allowed and the amendments sought are permitted to be made . Shri Muralidhar , the learned counsel for the petitioner , will file the amended copy of the writ petition within two weeks .
2 . In pursuance of the directions contained in the order dated 14-10-1997 , an affidavit of Shri Bir Singh , Under – Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Law and Justice has been filed on behalf of the Union of India . We have perused the said affidavit . It appears that while the provisions of the Act except Chapter III have been extended to all the States vide notification dated 9-11-1995 , the provisions of Chapter III have not been extended to a number of States and Union Territories for the reason that for the purpose of extending the provisions of Chapter III , it is necessary that the State Government/Union Territory Administration concerned should have framed the relev-ant rules under Section 28 of the Act . It has been stated that since rules have not been framed in certain States/Union Territo-ries , provisions of Chapter III have not been extended there .
3 . According to the affidavit of Shri Bir Singh the following States/Union Territories have not framed the rules so far :
1 . Arunachal Pradesh
2 . Kerala
3 . Maharashtra
4 . Nagaland
5 . Tripura
6 . Union Territory of Chandigarh
7 . Union Territory of Daman & Diu
8 . Union Territory of Dadra & Nagar Haveli
9 . Union Territory of Lakshadweep and
10 . Pondicherry
4 . Ms. Kamini Jaiswal , the learned counsel states that rules have been framed for the Union Territory of Chandigarh and have been notified vide notification dated 12-9-1997 .
5 . The provisions of the Act except Chapter III were Extended to all the States and the Union Territories on 9-11-1995 . More than two years have elapsed . The time available was more than sufficient for the State Government and the Union Territories to act and frame rules under Section 28 of the Act . It is directed that the States and the Union Territories which have not framed the rules so far , i.e. , the above-mentioned States/Union Territo-ries excluding the Union Territory of Chandigarh shall frame the relevant rules under Section 28 and notify the same within a period of two months . As soon as the rules are framed , the same shall be duly intimated to the Union Government and the Union Government shall take steps to issue the notification applying the provisions of Chapter III to that State/Union Territory within two weeks from the date of such intimation .
6 . In the amendment application filed by the petitioner it is stated that the High Court Legal Services Committee has not been constituted in a number of States for the reason that the regu-lations which are required to be framed under Section 29-A (sic 29 ) of the Act have not been framed yet . According to the amend-ment application such regulations have not been framed in the States of Gujarat , Mizoram , Uttar Pradesh , Madhya Pradesh , Punjab and Tamil Nadu . It is not clear as to whether the High Court Legal Services Committee has not been constituted in the various States/Union Territories on account of the failure to frame the regulations or even though the regulations have been made but such Committee has not been constituted . Shri Muralidhar states that the averments in the amendment application have been made on the basic of the information that has been supplied by some of the States/Union Territories and that some States/Union Territo-ries have not furnished the necessary information in that regard . It is , therefore , directed that in the States/Union Territories where the High Court Legal Services Committee has not been con-stituted either because of the absence of the regulations or even though the regulations have been made such Committee has not been constituted , the State Government/Union Territory Administration concerned shall frame the regulations and constitute the High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of two months from the date of this order .
7 . There are many States/Union Territories in which in spite of the rules having been framed steps have not been taken to consti-tute the various Committees as contemplated by the Act . The name of some of the State are mentioned in the application for amend-ment submitted by the petitioner but the information is not complete . It is directed that the States/Union Territories in which the various Committees have not been constituted in accor-dance with the rules , the State Government/Union Territory Admin-istration concerned shall constitute the various Committees under the Act within a period of two months .
8 . It is made clear that in the event of failure to comply with these directions contempt proceedings will have to be initiated against the Chief Secretary of the State Government/Union Terri-tory Administration concerned . An affidavit about compliance of these directions shall be filed on behalf of the State Govern-ments/Union Territories by 3-2-1998 .
9 . A copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretaries of all the States/Union Territories .
10 . List on 10.2.1998 .
( Order of 10. 2. 1998 has been reported in JT 1998 (4) SC 320 )
