"In view of the concurrent findings of the Sessions Court and the High Court on the principal issues arising in the case we see no justification for granting special leave for a reconsideration of the question as regards the guilt of the petitioners.. There is hardly a case, civil or criminal, which does not raise some question of law or the other. But no question of law of general public importance is involved in these petitions. It is time that it was realised that the jurisdiction of this Court to grant special leave to appeal can be invoked only in very exceptional circumstances. A question of law of general public importance or a decision which shocks the conscience of the court are some o f the prime requisites for the grant of` special leave.(order in SLP(Crl.No.1319ete.Of 1977dt.31-7-1978(unreported case)) [Ujjagar Singh &Anr. v. State (Delhi Admn..) ]

"Accused is a young man. He has no previous conviction . He has a good family background. His father was a Deputy Collector and Magistrate in the Mysore State. He struck mc as having intelligence above the average. He is not a person with a criminal tenancy. It is suggested by the learned P.P. that possibly accused did this in a fit of despartion as he was given notice of discharge by The Saurashtra University regarding his Readership in Mathematics.

The modern emphasis on the corrective aspect of punishment cannot be ignored in this case which determining the adequacy of sentence , having regard to the nature of the offence and the background of the accused, I think that I should give one chance for the accused to improve. Hence I do not think it desirable to send him to jail as he might return as a con firmed criminal which may he a liability to the society. If, on the other hand, mercy is shown to him at this stage of his first impact with justice, then it is probable that he may be reclaimed as a good citizen who call harness his talent for desirable activities. In view. of this T propose to pass the following order to which the learned Spl. Public prosecutor has no objection Substantive sentences of one day S.I. to run concurrently .
(emphasis added)

"18.3. We hope we shall not be misunderstood if we suggest that even the holding of periodical meetings on sentencing may be beneficial, not in the context of economic offences only, but in the evolution of a rational and consistent policy of sentencing. Experience of England is, by now, familiar to those interested in the subject.

A meeting of over 100 judges was held in the Royal Courts o f Justice in London on January 7-8, 1965 to take part in exercises designed to increase the uniformity of sentencing. The Lord Chief Justice expressed the hope that the meeting would be a model for similar ones throughout the country.

Conferences between judges, magistrates and penal administrators are, in England, organised with increasing frequency in many parts of the country with an annual conference in London for judges of the Supreme Courts.

18.4. Besides holding councils on sentencing, it may be worthwhile to hold "workshops which would be less formal but equally useful and likely to give concrete results. Such workshops could, for example, be attended by all Special Judges or other officers concerned with economic offences.National courses on sentencing strategies vis-a-vis social justice is a neglected cause and the Administration is, as yet, innocent of this imperative need.

The second profound issue, thrown up accidentally by Dr. Hoskots sojourn in the Yeravada jail, disturbs us more because less capable men-most prisoners in this country belong to the lower, illiterate bracket-suffer silent deprivation of liberty caused by unreasonableness, arbitrariness and unfair procedures behind the stone walls and iron bars."

Procedure established by law are words of deep meaning for all lovers of liberty and judicial sentinels. Amplified, activist fashion, procedure means fair and reasonable procedure which comports with civilised norms like natural justice rooted firm in community consciousness, not primitive processual barbarity nor legislated normative mockery. In a land-mark case, Maneka Gandhi ([1978] 1 SCC 248 [LQ/SC/1978/27] at 277, 281 and 284), Bhagwati, J. (on this point the Court was unanimous) explained:

"Does Article 21 merely require that there must be some semblance of procedure, howsoever arbitrary or fanciful. prescribed by law before a person can be deprived of his personal liberty or that the procedure must satisfy certain requisites in the sense that it must be fair and reasonable Article 21 occurs in Part III of the Constitution which confers certain fundamental rights".

"Is the prescription of some sort o f procedure enough or must the procedure comply with any particular requirements obviously, the procedure cannot be arbitrary, unfair or unreasonable. This indeed was conceded by the learned Attorney General who with his usual candour frankly stated that it was not possible for him to contend that any procedure howsoever arbitrary, oppressive or unjust may be prescribed by the law."

" The principle of reasonableness, which legally as well. as philosophically, is an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness pervades Article 14 like a brooding omnipresence and the procedure contemplated by Article 21 must answer the test of reasonableness in order to be in conformity with Article 14. It must be "right and just and fair and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive; otherwise it would be no procedure at all and the requirement of Article 21 would not be satisfied.

Any procedure which permits impairment of the constitutional right to go abroad without giving reasonable opportunity to show cause can not but be condemned as unfair an(3 unjust and hence, there is in the present case clear infringement of the requirement of Article 21".

"Procedure established by law", with its lethal potentiality, will reduce life and liberty to a precarious plaything it we do not ex necessitate import into those weighty words an adjectival rule of law, civilised in its soul, fair in its heart and fixing those imperatives of procedural protection absent which the processual tail will wag the substantive head. Can the sacred essence of the human right to secure which the struggle for liberation, with do or die patriotism, was launched be sapped by formalistic and pharisaic prescriptions, regardless of essential standards An enacted apparition is a constitutional illusion. Processual justice is writ patently on Article 21.Procedure which deals with the modalities of regulating; restricting or even rejecting a fundamental right falling with in Article 21 has to be fair, not foolish, carefully designed to effectuate, not to subvert, the substantive right itself. Thus understood, procedure must rule out anything arbitrary, freakish or bizarre. A valuable constitutional right II can be canalised only by civilised process.. What is fundamental is life and liberty. What is procedural is the manner of its exercise. This quality of fairness in the process is emphasised by the strong word established which means settled firmly not wantonly or whimsically. If i t is rooted in the legal consciousness of the community it becomes established procedure. And law leaves little doubt that it is normae regarded as just since law is the means and justice is the end.

Procedural safeguards are the indispensable essence of liberty. In fact, the history of personal liberty is largely the history of procedural safeguards and right to a hearing has a human-right ring. In India, because of poverty and illiteracy, the people are unable to protect and defend their rights; observance of fundamental rights is not regarded as good politics and their transgression as bad politics.

To sum up, procedure in Article 21 means fair, not formal procedure. Law is reasonable law, not any enacted piece.`

one component of fair procedure is natural justice. Generally speaking and subject to just exceptions, at least a single right of appeal on facts, where criminal conviction is fraught with long loss of liberty is basic to civilised jurisprudence. It is integral to fair procedure, natural justice and normative universality save in special cases like the original tribunal being a high bench sitting on Lt collegiate basis. Ill short, a first appeal from the Sessions Court to the High Court, as provided in the Criminal Procedure Code, manifests this value upheld in Art. 21.What follows from the appellate imperative Every step that makes the right of appeal fruitful is obligatory and every action or in- action which stultifies it is unfair and, ergo, unconstitutional ( In a sense, even Art. 19 may join hands with Art. 21, as the Menka Gandhi reasoning discloses). Pertinent to the point before us are two requirements: (1) service of a copy of the judgment to the prisoner in time to file all appeal and (ii) provision of free legal ser- vices to a prisoner who is indigent or otherwise disabled from securing legal assistance where the ends of justice call for such service. Both these are State responsibilities under Art. 21. Where the procedural law provides for further appeals what we have said regarding first appeals will similarly apply."

"What does it profit a poor and ignorant man that he is equal to his strong antagonist before the law if there is no one to inform him what the law is or that the courts are open to him on the same terms as to all other persons when he has not the wherewithal to pay the admission fee "

"Not only those precedents but also reason and reflection require us to recognise that ill our adversary sys tem of criminal justice, any person haled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him. This seems to us to be an obvious truth. Governments, both State and Federal, quite properly spend vast sums of money to establish machinery to try defendants accused of crime. Lawyers to prosecute are everywhere deemed essential to protect the publics interest in an orderly society. Similarly, there. are few defendants charged with crime who fail to hire the best lawyers they can get to prepare and present their defences. That government hires lawyers to prosecute and defendants who have the money hire lawyers to defend are the strongest indications of the widespread belief that lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries. The right of one charged with crime to counsel may not be deemed fundamental and essential to fair trials in some countries, but is in ours. From the very beginning, our state and national constitutions and laws have laid great emphasis on procedural and substantive safeguards designed to assure fair trials before impartial tribunals in which every defendant stands equal before the law. This noble idea cannot be realised if the poor man charged with crime has to face his accusers without a lawyer to assist him".

"Nothing rankles more in the human heart than a brooding sense of injustice. Illness we can put up with. But injustice makes us want to pull things down. When only the rich can enjoy the law, as a doubtful luxury, and the poor, who need it most , cannot have it because its expense puts it beyond their reach, the threat to the continued existence of free democracy is not imaginary but very real, because democracys very life depends upon making the machinery of justice so effective that every citizen shall believe in and benefit by its impartiality and fairness".

"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 defense, even though he have a perfect one. He requires the guiding hand of counsel it 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."

"the right to be tried in, his presence, and t o defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing; to be informed, if he does not have legal assistance, of his right; and to have legal assistance assigned to him in any case where the interests of justice shall require, and without payment by him in any such case if he does not have sufficient means to pay for it."

"93. Prisoners, men and women, regardless of means, are a peculiarly handicapped class. The morbid cell which c on- fines them walls them off from the world outside. Legal remedies, civil and criminal, are often beyond their physical and even financial reach unless legal aid is available within the prison as is provided in some States in India and in other countries. Without legal aid, petitions of appeal, applications for commutation or parole, bail motions and claims for administrative benefits would be well-nigh impossible. There is a case for systematised and extensive assistance through legal aid lawyers to our prison population."

"39A. Equal Justice and free legal aid.

The State shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, on a basis of equal opportunity, and shall, in particular, provide free legal aid, by suitable legislation or schemes or in any other way, to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities. (emphasis added) .

This article is an interpretative tool for Art. 21.

Partial statutory implementation of the mandate is found in Sec. 30 4, Cr. P. Code, and in other situations courts cannot be inert in the face of Art. 21 and 39A."

"1. Courts shall forthwith furnish a free transcript of the judgment when sentencing a person to prison term;

2. In the event of any such copy being sent to the jail authorities for delivery to the prisoner, by the appellate, revisional or other court, the official concerned shall, with quick despatch, get it delivered to the sentence and obtain written acknowledgment thereof from him.

3. Where the prisoner seeks to file an appeal or revision, every facility for exercise of that right shall be made available by the Jail Administration.

4. Where the prisoner is disabled from engaging a lawyer, on reasonable grounds such as indigence or incommunicado situation, the Court shall, if the circumstances of the case, the gravity of the sentence, and the ends of justice so requires assign competent counsel of for the prisoners defence, provided the party does not object to that lawyer

5. The State which prosecuted the prisoner and set in motion the process which deprived him of his liberty shall pay to assigned counsel such sum s the court may equitably fix.

6. These benign prescriptions operate by force of Art. 21 [strengthened by Art. 19(1)(d)] read with sub-article (5) from the lowest to the highest court where deprivation of life and personal liberty is in substantial peril."