Judgment

SEN, J. :- This petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution raises a question of some nicety. The question is whether the right to be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice under Art. 22 (1) of the Constitution comprehends the right of an accused to be supplied with a lawyer by the State.

2. The petitioner is an advocate-on-record practising in this Court and has been arraigned along with four others to stand his trial for the commission of an alleged offence of murder in furtherance of criminal conspiracy punishable under S. 302 read with S. 120-B of the Indian Penal Code in what is known as the Samastipur Bomb Blast case in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. Bawa Gurcharan Singh engaged by the main accused Santoshanand and Sudevanand as senior counsel was also appearing for the petitioner as a matter of professional courtesy to a fellow member of the Bar. The evidence of the first approver P. W. 1 Madan Mohan Srivastava alias Visheshwaranand was concluded on March 25, 1981 and he was cross-examined by Bawa Gurcharan Singh on behalf of the main accused as well as the petitioner, and by P. P. Grover appearing on behalf of the other two accused Arteshanand and GopaIji. On the same day, Bawa Gurcharan Singh withdrew his appearance for the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner himself has been conducting the case. The recording of the evidence of the second approver P. W. 2 Jaldhar Dass alias Vikarm has already commenced.

3. The petitioner contends that although he is not an indigent person he as a struggling lawyer has neither the capacity nor the means to engage a competent lawyer for his defence. He complains that under the rules framed by the Delhi High Court, a princely sum of Rs. 24/- per day is fixed as fee payable to a lawyer appearing in tile Court of Sessions as amicus curiae, and as the sessions trial in which he is involved lasts three days on an average in a week, no lawyer of sufficient standing will find it possible to appear as counsel for his defence. He alleges that the prosecution is being conducted by a special public prosecutor assisted by a galaxy of lawyers specially engaged by the State and large amounts are being paid as their fees. As a matter of processual fair play it is incumbent on the State to provide him with a counsel for his defence on a basis of equal opportunity as guaranteed under Art. 39A of the Constitution. Upon this basis, he seeks the issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus and other appropriate writs, directions and orders to ordain the Union of India to give financial assistance to him to engage a counsel of his choice on a scale equivalent to, or commensurate with, the fees that are being paid to the counsel appearing for the State.

4. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Court by its interim order dated June 4, 1981 having regard to the fact that the petitioner is a practising lawyer and is involved in a long drawn sessions trial, directed that the State should undertake to help him in the matter of his defence so far as the payment of fees to his counsel to defend him in the trial was concerned. It directed that the petitioner will inform the Court of Sessions the name of the counsel who would be appearing for him with a direction that the State would make necessary arrangement to pay the amount required to be expended on his fees subject to final accounting to be made depending on the result of the writ petition. By the subsequent order dated August 18, 1981 the Court in modification of the earlier order quantified that a sum of Rs. 500/- per day will be paid by the State to the senior counsel and Rs. 250/- per day to the junior for representing the petitioner.

5. At the hearing it was urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that suitable directions be made in conformity with the interim orders passed by the Court for payment of a reasonable amount as fees to the amicus curiae who appears for the petitioner at the trial. The learned Ad