(1.) The right to be heard would be in many cases of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be heard by counsel. Even the intelligent and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law. If charged with crime, he is incapable generally of determining for himself whether the indictment is good or bad. He is unfamiliar with the rules of evidence. Left without the aid of counsel he may be put on trial without a proper charge and convicted upon incompetent evidence or evidence irrelevant to the issue or otherwise inadmissible. He lacks both the skill and knowledge adequately to prepare his defence even though he has a perfect one. He requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him. Without it, though he be not guilty he faces the danger of conviction because he does not know how to establish his innocence. If that be true of men of intelligence how much more true is it of the ignorant and illiterate or those of feeble intellect.
(2.) The above observations were made by Douglas, J. in Jon Richard Argersinger v. Raymond Hamlin,1972 407 US 25
(3.) The petitioners in this petition are seeking indirectly the enforcement of above concept by contending that venue of trial be shifted as it is not possible of have legal aid where the trial is on. The respondents vehemently oppose this. The petitioners contend that legal assistance is inherent in Article 21 of the Constitution which provides 'No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law'. This as per the petitioner is a fundamental right. Before examining the scope of the protection conferred by Article 21 facts in brief be noticed.