T SUTHENDRARAJA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An unfortunate episode of non-reconciliation between the defence lawyers engaged as State Brief Counsel and the State, on the quantum of fees payable to those counsel, has led to a grinding belt, of the trial in C.C. No. 3 of 1992, on the file of Designated Court, Poonawallas, which is now known as Rajiv Gandhi Assassination case. If only the defending counsel and the State had viewed with care and concern the liberty of the accused and their right to a speady trial vis-a-vis. the obligation of the State of reasonably provide for the defence of these indigent accused, this impasse could have been avoided.

(2.) . While the defending lawyers, after acceptance of their appointments as State Brief Counsel, have demanded payment of fees on par with prosecuting counsel the State has chosen to point out the rules fixing the fee at Rs. 50/- per diem or such lesser fee as may be fixed in the discretion of the Court in the case of work lasting less than a full day, subject to a maximum of Rs. 300/- for the whole case for each pleader, while contending that it has no obligation to pay more.

(3.) . And so, we have before us these two writ petitions, one preferred by one of the accused in the Calendar case and another by a State Brief Counsel on behalf of himself and counsel similarly placed, the former pleading for payment of fees for his counsel on par with the prosecuting counsel, and the latter sticking on to the same prayer.