The Bombay High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed seeking direction to the Respondent No.1 (University of Mumbai), Respondent No.3 (State Legal Services Authorities) and Respondent No.4 (Bar Council of India) to empanel a team of their senior officers to visit all Law Colleges under the jurisdiction of the Mumbai University and on close verification of the functioning of the legal aid clinics in every college prepare a detailed report as avered in this PIL for submission before the Court for appropriate adjudication and final verdict.
The PIL further prayed:-
(b) To direct Respondent No.2, State’s Dept. of education to prepare a budgetary layout for funding law colleges through grant-in-aid scheme and further to grant appropriate annual amount for colleges to run legal aid clinics as effectively as laid down in the statutes and as ordered by the Supreme Court as referred hereinabove.
(c) To direct Respondent No.1 University to give an undertaking to prepare annual report for filing before the court for next 3 years from every college, Under Rule 42, Schedule VIII in hard and soft copies to satisfy on its proper survey and monitoring the working of the legal aid clinics and thereafter every year annually to the remaining three Respondents and if any of them suggest any changes or modifications in implementation of the scheme, shall be implied accordingly.
(d) To direct University authorities to hold seminars, workshops and training camps for proper management for ultimum benefit of the beneficiaries to reflect in the annual report.
(e) To direct Respondent No.3 through District Legal Services Authorities with the assistance of panel advocates to train para legal volunteers of each college.
(f) To direct State Legal Aid Authority, to prepare its own annual report based on the monthly reports of District Legal Aid Authorities through Law Colleges and Universities and conducting periodical reviews of working of Legal Aid Clinics as stipulated in the National Legal Services Authority.
(g) To direct Respondent No.3, Legal Services Authority to appropriately hike the rates of advocates fees and and other out of pocket expenses as framed in the SCHEME TO PROVIDE LEGAL SERVICES TO THE MIDDLE INCOME CITIZEN, stipulated by National Legal Service Authority in 2011.
(h) To direct to Respondent No.2, the minister concerned for the Dept. of Education, disciplinary action against the V.C., and the Pro. V.C. respectively of the Respondent No.1 University on dereliction of duty as written by the petitioners to the State Governor on 13-12-2019 quoting the Law Under The Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Arif S Doctor inquired the Petitioner in person as to how in light of the above observations (a) the Petition would be entertainable and (b) whether he was desirous of amending the Petition, on which Petitioner submitted that he would not be amending the Petition and submitted that the same was maintainable as filed. When asked how such a vague and omnibus Petition was maintainable, Petitioner instead of answering the query of the Court, proceeded to read out the entire Petition. After he read out the entire Petition, Petitioner then tendered written submissions which he also proceeded to read out.
The Petitioner then placed reliance upon a judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Manubhai Pragaji Vashi and Ors. to submit that the right to free legal aid and speedy trial were fundamental rights granted under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He also pointed out that Article 39-A of the Constitution of India provided for “equal justice” and “free legal aid” and it was for the State to secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice. The Petitioner submitted that Article 21 read with Article 39-A of the Constitution thus mandated/cast a duty upon the State to afford grants-in-aid to recognized private law colleges, similar to other faculties, which qualify for the receipt of such grant in aid. Basis these submissions, the Petitioner submitted that the reliefs prayed for ought to be granted.
Rebecca Gonsalvez , counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.3, reiterated the preliminary objection and then without prejudice to the same, tendered a list of the legal aid clinics established and functioning under the Legal Services Clinics Regulation, 2011. Basis this she submitted that the entire Petition was misconceived and devoid of merit.
After having heard the Petitioner at length and have gone through the contents of the Petition , as already observed by the previous Division Bench, no details are given in the Petition and the same is omnibus the Court noted that the Petitioner despite seeking time on the 20th of January 2023, has not taken any steps to amend/cure the Petition.
The Court noted that the Petition simply reads as a discourse by the Petitioner. The Petitioner even though given the opportunity to cure these defects has not done so. The Petitioner has not answered the query of the Court as to how such a Petition would be maintainable or how the reliefs prayed for could infact be granted.