BRIJESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On merits, we have heard the learned amicus curiae on the matter and gone through the material on record. The Trial Court as well as the High Court have gone into, in detail, and meticulously examined material on record, and came to the conclusion that the Petitioner be convicted. The Petitioner is a habitual offender. He is involved in robbery, murder cases, etc. We have also gone through the material on record and we do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned judgments. Hence, the Special Leave Petition fails and is Signature Not Verified dismissed.

(2.) However, before parting with the matter, we want to make certain observations based on the submissions repeatedly made by the learned advocate representing the Legal Services Authority both in civil and criminal matters. Generally, reputed advocates are being appointed as advocates for the Legal Services Authority or amicus curiae. They feel handicapped as they are not making any grievance against the Authority except the grievance that they are not provided with necessary assistance to effectively represent the matter. In this context, we want to make certain observations as under:-

(3.) The right to legal representation sits at the core of not only the right to life and liberty conferred by Article 21 of the Constitution, but at the very foundation of the entirety of our justice system, be it civil or criminal. For this right to be meaningful, it is imperative that it does not make distinctions between the rich and the poor, the haves and have-nots. The right to legal representation, as necessitated by the demands of justice and equity, must be unfazed by the economic class or financial resources of the accused.