SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(SC) 400

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, JJ.
Shankar Mahto – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1971 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No (s) of 2026 @ Crl.MP. 7862 of 2017)
Decided On : 16-04-2026

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Vibha Dutta Makhija, Sr. Adv. (A.C.) Mr. Aftab Ali Khan, AOR Mr. Parveen Gaur, Adv. Mr. Mansur Ali Khan, Adv. Ms. Sheetal Rawat, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Faisal Khan, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Mahipal Singh, Adv. Ms. Swati Vishan, Adv. Mr. Akhileshwar Jha, Adv. Ms. Asmita Mishra, Adv. Mr. Devendra Kumar Mishra, Adv. Ms. Priyanka, Adv. Mr. Mukul Kumar, AOR Mr. Narendra Kumar, AOR Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AOR Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Yadav, Adv. Mr. Keshav Singh, Adv. Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR Mrs. Anu K Joy, Adv. Mr. Alim Anvar, Adv. Mr. Santhosh K, Adv. Mrs. Devika A.l., Adv. Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, AOR Ms. Vishakha, AOR Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR Mr. Karun Shamra, Adv. Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Adv. Ms. Rajkumari Divyasana, Adv. Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, AOR Mr. Abhisek Mohanty, Adv. Mr. Ansh Rajauria, Adv. Mr. Ankolekar Gurudatta, AOR Mr. Ashok Mathur, AOR Ms. Shardha Zutshi, Adv. Mr. Ahanthem Henry, Adv. Mr. Ahanthem Rohen Singh, Adv. Mr. Mohan Singh, Adv. Mr. Aniket Rajput, Adv. Ms. Khoisnam Nirmala Devi, Adv. Mr. Yeshu Mehta, Adv. Mr. Tanay Hegde, Adv. Mr. Kumar Mihir, AOR Mr. Pradeep Misra, AOR Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Adv. Mr. Prang Newmai, Adv. Ms. Yanmi Phazang, Adv. Mr. Somanadri Goud Katam, AOR Mr. Sirajuddin, Adv. Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR M/S. KSN & Co., AOR Mr. V Balachandran, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Naidu, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Bharadwaj, Adv. Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar, AOR Ms. Yashmita Pandey, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Majithia, AOR Mr. Sanchit Garga, AOR Ms. Mithu Jain, Adv. Mr. Kunal Rana, Adv. Mr. Shashwat Jaiswal, Adv. Ms. Diksha Arora, Adv. Mr. Bhanu Singh, Adv. Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR Mr. Ramesh Babu M. R., AOR Mr. Vijay Kumar, Adv. Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR Mr. Deepayan Dutta, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Adv. Mr. Nikunj Gupta, Adv. Mr. Keshav Mittal, Adv. Mr. Gaj Singh, Adv. Mr. Surjendu Sankar Das, AOR Mr. Anando Mukherjee, AOR Mr. Shwetank Singh, Adv. Ms. Riya Dhingra, Adv. Mr. Utkarsh Anand, Adv. Mr. Ravi Raghunath, AOR Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, AOR Mr. T.K. Nayak, Adv. Mr. Sahil Tagotra, AOR Ms. Shreya Kasera, Adv. Mr. Mukesh K. Giri, AOR Mr. Mandaar Mukesh Giri, Adv. Mr. Pranjal Kumar, Adv. Mr. Kunal Chaudhary, Adv. Ms. Enakshi Mukhopadhyay Siddhanta, AOR Mr. Vaibhav Srivastava, A.A.G. Ms. Sugandha Anand, AOR Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Prashant Shrikant Kenjale, AOR Mr. Anwesh Madhukar, Adv. Mr. Archit Upadhayay, AOR Mr. Harsh Prabhakar, Adv. Mr. Abhas Mishra, Adv. Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, AOR Mr. G. Prakash, AOR Ms. Mukti Chaudhry, AOR Ms. Disha Singh , AOR Ms. G. Indira, AOR Mr. Kunal Chatterji, AOR Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Rohit Bansal, Adv. Mr. Varij Nayan Mishra, Adv. Mr. Atul Jha, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Kumar Jha, AOR Ms. Aparna Bhatt, Sr. Adv. Ms. Charu Ambwani, AOR Ms. Karishma Maria, Adv. Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, AOR Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR Ms. Amruta Arjun Garg, Adv. Ms. Arushi Kulshrestha, Adv. Mr. Saaransh Shukla, Adv. Ms. Muskan Bensla, Adv. Ms. Mrinmoyee Das, Adv. Mr. T. G. Narayanan Nair, AOR Ms. Samyuktha H Nair, Adv. Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR Mr. Satyalipsu Ray, Adv. Ms. Priyal Sheth, Adv. Ms. Sneha Kalita, AOR Mr. P. I. Jose, AOR Mr. Nirnimesh Dube, AOR Mr. K.M.Nataraj, A.S.G. Ms. Indira Bhakar, Adv. Mr. Tadimalla Bhaskar Gowtham, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv. Mr. Santosh Ramdurg, Adv. Mr. Yogesh Vats, Adv. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR M/S. Parekh & Co., AOR Mr. T.S.Kargawkar,Adv. Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Chawla, Adv. Mr. Anupam Kumar, Adv. Mr. Raghavendra Pratap Singh, Adv. Ms. Shreya Jha, Adv. Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, AOR Mr. Sanjai Kumar Pathak, AOR Mrs. Shashi Pathak, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Robin Kumar, Adv. Ms. Shweta Jayshankar Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Ashish Kumar Sinha, Adv. Mrs. Binita Jaiswal, Adv. Mr. Karan Sharma, AOR Mr. Mohit Siwach, Adv. Ms. K. V. Bharathi Upadhyaya, AOR Mr. Mahesh Thakur, AOR Mr. Narveer Yadav, Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Sati, Adv. Mr. Anil Nag, AOR Ms. Asmita Singh, AOR Ms. Ankita Makan, Adv. Mr. Karthik S.D., AOR Mr. Kunal Mimani, Adv. Mr. Prashant Alai, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Rana, Adv.
Cases Referred :
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, (1978) 4 SCC 494 [Para 7]
Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 81 [Para 7]
Madhav Hayawadanrao Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra, (1978) 3 SCC 544 [Para 7]
Khatri (II) v. State of Bihar, (1981) 1 SCC 627 [Para 7]
Suhas Chakma v. Union of India, 2024 INSC 813 [Para 7]

Legal aid is a constitutional right linked to Articles 21 and 39A, mandating the State to ensure access to justice by providing timely legal representation, particularly to marginalized individuals.

Headnote:(A) Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 - Article 39A of the Constitution of India - Provision of free legal services - Emphasis on the State's obligation to ensure access to justice for all, particularly marginalized groups - Delivered judgment focusing on systemic deficiencies in legal aid mechanisms and proposed a comprehensive Standard Operating Procedure for translation and transmission of records to expedite legal aid processes. (Paras 6, 10-16)

(B) Constitutional Responsibilities - The concept of legal aid is rooted in ensuring equality before law and enabling individuals to assert their rights, particularly emphasizing the significance of free legal aid as a fundamental right directly linked to Article 21 of the Constitution. (Paras 6, 7)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was challenging a death sentence upheld by the High Court, with discussions focusing on delays in legal processes due to issues in the legal aid system, leading to the appointment of an amicus curiae to assess and propose solutions.

Findings of Court:
The Court directed the establishment of the Standard Operating Procedure to streamline legal aid services, ensuring timely access to justice through enhanced coordination and efficient handling of legal documents.

Issues: The case raised concerns over delays in legal aid applications and the necessity of prompt interventions from legal services authorities.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that legal aid is a constitutional mandate and emphasized the importance of implementing structured procedures to minimize delays, ensuring all legal aid beneficiaries receive timely representation and assistance.

Result: The Court issued various directives for improving the legal aid mechanism and ensuring compliance with timelines outlined in the Standard Operating Procedures.

Table of Content
1. background of appeal and previous procedures. (Para 1 , 2)
2. concerns over delays and lack of compliance. (Para 3)
3. importance of legal aid and systematic issues. (Para 4 , 6 , 7 , 8)
4. judicial obligations and procedural standards for legal aid. (Para 5 , 9 , 11 , 12 , 13)
5. concluding directions and recommendations for effective implementation. (Para 10 , 14 , 15 , 16)

ORDER

SANJAY KAROL, J.

THE APPEAL AND ITS PREVIOUS ORDERS

Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

1. While dealing with an appeal by the appellant, challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence to death awarded to him and confirmed in terms of Criminal Appeal No. 425 of 2002 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna, as per judgment dated 20th February, 2014, this Court in terms of the order dated 05th May, 2017, this Court noticed that inordinate delay was affecting matters in which legal aid was involved. With an intent to find out the cause for the same and issue directions as may be necessary, Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned senior counsel, was appointed as amicus curiae to assist the Court. Since then, the matter has been listed on numerous occasions. By order dated 16th October, 2019 it was recorded that various deliberations had taken place across agencies including the Supreme Court Legal Service Committee [‘SCLSC’] and National Legal Service Authority, with the learned amicus curiae, and the same had been crystallized into a note of suggestions. Notices were sent to the High Courts/State Governments/Union Territories to enable them to give their suggestions before any modalities could be finalized. The order dated 26th February 2020, and 5th March, 2020, reveals that the death reference from which the original proceedings before this Court arose was decided, and as such, this miscellaneous petition was de-tagged.

2. Order dated 19th January 2021 reads as under:-

    “We have noticed that in the special leave petitions filed by Supreme Court Legal Services Committee (SCLSC) on behalf of the convicts, there is an inordinate delay which becomes difficult to condone. Needless to say, the situation brings about a lack of even handedness in dealing with matters of condonation of delay. We see no reason why these delays should continue to occur particularly with the availability of tools provided by information and communication technology which are easily available. In this matter, Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned Amicus Curiae, has submitted a report dated 15.01.2021 in consultation with the SCLSC on measures to curb the delay. Valuable as that report is, we consider it appropriate to constitute a Committee comprising of certain experts who would examine all the suggestions and responses which may be received by it from the High Courts as well as the other stakeholders. In view of the other suggestions (Annexure B) by NALSA and the response submitted by various High Courts, we find it appropriate to constitute a Committee comprising of Secretary (Ministry of Home Affairs), Government of India, Director General, National Informatics Centre, Member (Process), E-Committee, Supreme Court of India and Member Secretary, NALSA. The Committee shall examine the aforementioned suggestions/responses and submit a report with regard to digitization, translation and electronic transmission of records to facilitate access to justice and timely filing of appeals/SLPs by the convicts, by utilizing the Information and Communication Technology tools, within four weeks. We have also gone through the Module and the Note dated 16.10.2019 as per the report for timely filing of appeals/SLPs of convicts though the Legal Services Institutions. We therefore direct the High Courts to submit their responses to the Committee through their Registrars General within two weeks. The Committee shall submit its report within two weeks’ thereafter. The Secretary General of this Court shall coordinate meetings of the Committee ”

3. By order dated 23rd May 2025, certain questions we

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top