The Supreme Court on Thursday issued a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) prescribing binding timelines to streamline legal aid appeals. [Shankar Mahto v. State of Bihar]
A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh noted that delays in translation of records and their transmission between authorities and lack of coordination often prevented convicts from approaching appellate courts in time.
It thus laid down strict stage-wise timelines requiring communication of judgments and consent within 7 days, collection of records within 10 days, translation within 15–30 days and filing of appeals within 15 days.
“While implementation of the SOP is left to the High Courts, we direct that the timelines under Heading 5 shall be treated as binding. This will streamline the filing of appeals in cases handled by Legal Services Committees and address structural gaps that prompted these proceedings,” the Court said in its judgment dated April 16.
The Bench also called for a unified digital platform to enable real-time coordination and tracking of cases. It designated the Member Secretary of the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) as the nodal officer to oversee implementation of the same.
The directions came in a death penalty case wherein the top court had taken note of delays in filing appeals through legal aid mechanisms. The issue, however, expanded into a broader examination of structural gaps affecting access to justice in legal aid matters.
The Court observed that the SOP was evolved after extensive stakeholder consultations and directed High Courts to act on it administratively.
It also introduced a three-tier categorisation of cases, placing death penalty and life imprisonment matters in Category A, other criminal cases in Category B and civil and less urgent matters in Category C, to ensure prioritisation and timely processing.
It was observed that the monitoring framework under the SOP would help keep a close watch on the functioning of legal services committees.
The Court thus directed that monitoring committees be set up at the earliest, with the Member Secretary of the High Court Legal Services Committee as an ex officio member.
For the Supreme Court, the Member Secretary of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee (SCLSC) was asked to place the order before its Executive Chairman for further directions.
The Bench said that it was not issuing specific directions on translators, but noted concerns over the poor quality of translations in recent cases. It observed that this pointed to the need for structural changes and asked High Courts to examine the issue and take a decision within four weeks.
The Court also made a delayed disclosure format mandatory, noting that it would bring transparency to the time taken in filing appeals. Authorities have been given two weeks to incorporate this format, after which all legal aid appeals must include it.
“...Legal aid helps ensure that rights are not confined to those who can afford legal representation, but are available to all, including the poor and marginalized. In this sense, it plays a crucial role in making legal protections meaningful,” the judgment stated.
The Court accordingly asked its Registry to circulate the order to all High Courts for necessary follow-up action.
It also appreciated the assistance of all counsel, especially Senior Advocate and amicus curiae Vibha Datta Makhija.
Senior Advocate Aparna Bhat appeared for SCLSC and
Rashmi Nandakumar represented NALSA.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on May 4.
[Read Judgment]