The Committee’s lapse was noted after the litigant (a respondent) appeared in person during the May 3 hearing to oppose an adjournment request by the opposite party’s counsel.
The litigant told the Court that he had been contesting the case since 2016 while opposing the adjournment sought by the rival party (petitioner). The Court, in turn, interacted with the litigant and asked him whether he wished to avail legal assistance from a lawyer appointed by the DHCLSC.
In response, the litigant told the Court that he had written two letters (one in October 2023 and one in March 2024) to the DHCLSC requesting legal aid since he could not afford to hire a private lawyer.
Despite this, no legal counsel was provided by the Committee, the Court was told. Oral requests for a lawyer were also made to the Committee to no avail.
The Court, therefore, took the initiative to appoint Advocate Gaurav Kumar Pandey as a counsel for the litigant, while directing the DHSLSC to pay the lawyer’s fees.
The Court also asked the DHCLSC to explain why it failed to appoint a lawyer for the litigant, despite his requests.
“In view of the above facts, this Court has left with no option but to call for the affidavit from the Secretary, DHCLSC explaining therein as to why despite two letters submitted by the poor litigant i.e. the respondent herein which is also duly received by the DHCLSC, the legal aid had not been provided to the respondent. Let an affidavit be filed within ten days regarding the same by the Secretary, DHCLSC,” the Court ordered.
Source: Barandbench
