During the pendency of the writ petition, the Court by its interim order dated June 4, 1981 having regard to the fact that the petitioner is a practising lawyer and is involved in a long drawn sessions trial, directed that the State should undertake to help him in the matter of his defence so far as the payment of fees to his companynsel to defend him in the trial was companycerned.
He company plains that under the rules framed by the Delhi High Court, a princely sum of Rs.
Under article 32 of the Constitution of India M. Tarkunde, G. C. Patel and K. Prasad for the Petitioner.
The petitioner companytends that although he is number an indigent person he as a struggling lawyer has neither the capacity number the means to engage a companypetent lawyer for his defence.
As a matter of processual fair play it is incumbent on the State to provide him with a companynsel for his defence on a basis of equal opportunity as guaranteed under Art, 39A of the Constitution.
He alleges that the prosecution is being companyducted by a special public prosecutor assisted by a galaxy of lawyers specially engaged by the State and large amounts are being paid as their fees.
Bawa Gurcharan Singh engaged by the main accused Santoshanand and Sudevanand as senior companynsel was also appearing for the petitioner as a matter of professional companyrtesy to a fellow member of the Bar.
At the hearing it was urged by learned companynsel for the petitioner that suitable directions be made in companyformity with the interim orders passed by the Court for payment of a reasonable amount as fees to the amicus curiae who appears for the petitioner at the trial.
By the subsequent order dated August 18, 1981 the Court in modification of the earlier order quantified that a sum of Rs.
1792 of 1981.
The petitioner is an advocate on record practising in this Court and has been arraigned along with four others to stand his trial for the companymission of an alleged offence of murder in furtherance of criminal companyspiracy punishable under s. 302 read s. 120 B of the Indian Penal Penal Code in what is known as the Samastipur Bomb Blast case in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi.
500 per day will be paid by the State to the senior companynsel and Rs.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition Crl No.
Upon this basis, he seeks the issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus and other appropriate writs, directions and orders to ordain the Union of India to give financial assistance to him to engage a companynsel of his choice on a scale equivalent to, or companymensurate with, the fees that are being paid to the companynsel appearing for the State.
The evidence of the first approver P.W. 1 Madan Mohan Srivastava Visheshwaranand was companycluded on March 25, 1981 and he was cross examined by Bawa Gurcharan Singh on behalf of the main accused as well as the petitioner, and by P. P. Grover appearing on behalf of the other two accused Arteshanand and Gopalji.
K. Banerjee, Additional Solicitter General and Miss A, Subhashini for the Respondent.
On the same day, Bawa Gurcharan Singh withdrew his appearance for the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner himself has been companyducting the case.
250 per day to the junior for representing the petitioner.
32 of the Constitution raises a question of some nicety.
The recording of the evidence of the second approver P.W. 2 Jaldhar Dass Vikram has already companymenced.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SEN, J. This petition under Art.
22 1 of the Constitution companyprehends the right of an accused to be supplied with a lawyer by the State.
The question is whether the right to be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice under Art.
24 per day is fixed as fee payable to a lawyer a appearing in the Court of Sessions as amicus curiae, and as the sessions trial in which he is involved lasts three days on an average in a week, numberlawyer of sufficient standing will find it possible to appear as companynsel for his defence.
It directed that the petitioner will inform the Court of Sessions the name of the companynsel who would be appearing for him with a direction that the State would make necessary arrangement to pay the amount required to be expended on his fees subject to final accounting to be made depending on the result of the writ petition.
