Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“The right of the accused to defend himself in a criminal trial is guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He is entitled to a fair trial. But if effective legal aid is not made available to an accused who is unable to engage an advocate, it will amount to infringement of his fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 21”
The petitioner sought two additional legal meetings with his Lawyers in a week through video conferencing on the ground that he is embroiled in more than 30 cases in various States of India and even though he has been granted interim bail in a case, but his relief has not become infructuous as he still continues to be in custody in other matters.
The Court was of the view that a 63-year-old employee, who is to face a departmental enquiry along with the criminal trial becomes “tongue tied” and therefore he would require the assistance of a Legal Practitioner.
by Shubham Pandey* and Dr Uday Shankar**
The petition was filed by the sister of Mr. Raghwendra Pratap Singh, an Indian national who has been arrested in Uzbekistan and is hereby seeking consular access and legal representation.
The relief claimed in the present suit by Late Shri S.K. Beri was specifically against Deepak Beri and his family members. Deepak Beri has contested the suit by filing a written statement controverting the averments made to the plaint and seeking dismissal of the present suit.
If the Court would allow such an interpretation, then this provision would become redundant, and a floodgate of law graduates, who may not be enrolled with the bar councils to become an ‘advocate’ but are still practicing law, would pour in. The purpose of keeping the proceedings fact-based and free expert legal advisory, would be lost.
Delhi High Court: In a case filed by the petitioners challenging the vires of Section 17 of the Maintenance and
Supreme Court of Canada: The Canadian Supreme Court recently had to decide on an important issue of administrative law pertaining to how