Help in finding a lawyer
SANJAI KUMAR SINGH
(Querist) 06 May 2012
This query is : Resolved
Dear Sir(s).
I am a 71 year old Retired Air Force Officer of the Fighter Branch who took part in all the post Independence wars with China and Pakistan and am presently living alone, and bedridden, in Udaipur in a small rented room. s I have been deserted by my wife for another man, probably because we had no children.
Nine years ago I was falsely implicated in a case of 302and 307 and sentenced to Life imprisonment by the Udaipur Fast Track court and Jailed. On Appeal to the Rajasthan High court, (vide case No.81/2008 ) the sentence was reduced to 7 Years under Sec 304.and I was released last year on completion of sentence.
A few days ago I received a ‘Dasti’ through the local Police, which stated that The Father of the Deceased has filed a SLP(Cr) to the Supreme Court and the same has been accepted in Court No. 11, as Case No 3712/2011. Shantilal Godawat vs Sanjai Kumar Singh
I have no money left to fight my case, as during my incarceration I was swindled out of house and home by my wife and do not have a penny to my name.
Could you please let me know if there is any Charitable Person/Organization that would be willing to fight the case on my behalf ? How can I contact them ? And also what I should do next? There is no one here to advise me.
I will be grateful for any help extended to me. S.K.Singh (Wing Commander) Retired.
ashutosh mishra
(Expert) 06 May 2012
Sir!
Courts can order lawyers to work for free.
Sir!you need to approach Supreme Court Legal Service Committee (for short SCLSC).
To be eligible for free legal aid for filing or defending a case in the Supreme Court, you have to satisfy two criteria.
First, you should belong to any of the following categories of persons:
· a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe
· a victim of trafficking in human beings or begar as referred to in Article 23 of the Constitution
· a woman or a child
· a mentally ill or otherwise disabled person
· a person under circumstances of undeserved want such as being victim of a mass disaster, ethnic violence, caste atrocity, flood, drought, earthquake or industrial disaster
· an industrial workman
· in custody, including custody in a protective home [Nari Niketan] or a juvenile home or a mental asylum
· in receipt of annual income less than Rs. 50,000. For this you are required to give an affidavit [This last requirement is called the means test].
However, irrespective of the means test, legal aid may be granted
Ø in cases of great public importance; or
Ø in a special case, reasons for which are to be recorded in writing, considered otherwise deserving of legal aid or advice.
Second, the SCLSC must be satisfied that you have a reasonably good chance of succeeding in your case [prima facie case]
For seeking legal advice, the Act does not prescribe any eligibility criteria.
Sir! You need to take the following steps to look for service:
1. Make an application for legal aid to the SCLSC. The forms for these can be obtained in person or through post or e-mail from the SCLSC at the address indicated below or from any of the nearest Taluk/District/State/High Court Legal Services Committees.
2. You have to submit the completed application form to the SCLSC along with full documentation. For instance, if you seek to file an appeal against the order of a High Court, you are required to submit a copy [preferably certified] of the order of the High Court, copies of orders, if any, of the courts below the High Court, copies of all the papers filed in your case before the lower court and High Court, comments of the lawyer on the judgment. If these are in a language other than English, please try and send translated copies.
Please note that there is no fee or charge for obtaining the application form.
For obtaining legal advice, you can call at the office of the SCLSC on any working day between 10.30 a.m. and 5 p.m.. Or you could send in a query by post, for which you should receive a reply within fifteen days. If the query is sent by e-mail, you could expect a reply sooner. Again, there are no charges for legal advice.
ALL THIS AND EVEN MORE INFORMATION YOU CAN HAVE SIR! FROM SITE GIVEN BELOW:
http://www.sclsc.nic.in/faq.htm
Sir!
You may visit the following page to gather an idea how supreme courts in other geographies of globe is viewing such a need of a litigant...
http://www.lawyersweekly.ca/index.php?section=article&articleid=1137
ashutosh mishra
(Expert) 06 May 2012
If you can not Sir!the the article is posted here below:.......
By Cristin Schmitz
Ottawa
April 09 2010 issue
Courts can order criminal lawyers, on pain of contempt, to represent impecunious clients for free “as a last resort” to forestall “serious harm to the administration of justice,” the Supreme Court has ruled 9-0.
The top court’s March 26 ruling in R. v. Cunningham holds that lawyers representing an accused do not have an unfettered right to drop a case already scheduled for a hearing — at short notice to the court and the Crown — simply because their clients can’t, or won’t pay them.
In practice, this was already the law in most of Canada, except in B.C. and Yukon where appeal courts had ruled that judges don’t have jurisdiction to order counsel to continue to represent impecunious accused, and therefore requests to get off the record must automatically be granted.
However the Supreme Court concluded that criminal courts do have the authority to control their own processes — either inherently in the case of superior courts, or by necessary implication in the case of provincial or territorial courts. As part and parcel of that authority, courts have the discretion to refuse to grant defense counsel’s request to get off the record for non-payment reasons in cases where an adjournment will be necessary and “allowing withdrawal would cause serious harm to the administration of justice,” the court held.
However the court noted that when counsel makes the request for removal “far enough in advance of any scheduled proceeding and an adjournment will not be necessary,” the court should allow the withdrawal, and do so without asking the reasons behind counsel’s request.
Justice Marshall Rothstein stressed for the high court that a judge’s power to refuse counsel’s request to withdraw for non-payment of fees “should be exercised exceedingly sparingly” and “only when necessary to prevent serious harm to the administration of justice.”
“Ordering counsel to work for free is not a decision that should be made lightly,” he emphasized. “Though criminal defence counsel may be in the best position to assess the financial risk in taking on a client, only in the most serious circumstances should counsel alone be required to bear this financial burden. In general, access to justice should not fall solely on the shoulders of the criminal defence Bar and, in particular, legal aid lawyers.”
Vancouver criminal lawyer Gregory DelBigio, counsel for the intervener Canadian Bar Association, said those provisos are key. “The vast majority of Canadian lawyers conduct themselves in accordance with the highest ethical standards and it is not anticipated that the Cunningham decision will result in any significant changes in the way in which lawyers practise,” DelBigio remarked. “However, lawyers will now need to ensure that fee-related issues that interfere with a lawyer’s willingness to continue to act as counsel are brought to the court’s attention in a timely manner.”
Lead counsel for the successful appellant Crown, Ronald Reimer of the Public Prosecution Service of Canada in Edmonton, told The Lawyers Weekly the Supreme Court’s “primary message is that while courts are not eager to have lawyers work without retainer, the court maintains a supervisory jurisdiction to ensure that the fact that a lawyer is getting off the record doesn’t cause grave harm to the administration of justice,…but that the exercise of that jurisdiction should be reserved for those cases where this is occurring too late to solve the problem some other way.”
Had the court ruled otherwise, Reimer suggested, “we would have experienced more of what they regularly experience in B.C., which is a situation where, in particularly long and complicated matters, there is a series of lawyers, and a series of interruptions in the case, that occurs because the management of [the payment] issue is sometimes left to chance.”
Counsel for the intervener Criminal Lawyers’ Association, Scott Hutchison of Toronto’s Stockwoods, said that, except for criminal lawyers in B.C. and Yukon, the decision probably makes it harder to, in effect, order a lawyer to work for free. “They have set a standard for making that order that is significantly higher than that it used to be in Ontario,” he said.
Hutchison explained some Ontario judges previously took the view that if counsel’s withdrawal would be administratively inconvenient or result in any lost court time, that alone justified refusing counsel’s request to withdraw. Now judges must go further to consider such factors as whether the Crown’s case would be harmed by an adjournment, and the impact on defence counsel, he said. “The only way that this order will be made is if the court is satisfied that allowing counsel off the record would do serious harm to the administration of justice.”
Based on Alberta’s experience, Reimer said he doesn’t anticipate that defense counsel will have to work for free often. “What I think the real practical result is is that counsel come to court and they indicate [to the court] the limits of their retainer…and they will simply say ‘Right now I am not prepared to commit to a trial and so the court should know before scheduling this matter that my client does not have a lawyer retained to do his preliminary inquiry [or] his trial. He has a lawyer who is retained for today only, or to do this application.’ ”
Added Reimer, this approach encourages “a more orderly system because we don’t set dates [and] we don’t subpoena witnesses based on false expectations about whether or not [the hearing] is going to go ahead.”
Nils Clarke, executive director of the Yukon Legal Services Society whose staff lawyer was the respondent in the appeal, said legal aid should generally be deemed by courts “to be acting within its statutory mandate, and should be given wide latitude to exercise that mandate in a principled and ethical manner through its board of directors and its executive director in every jurisdiction in Canada and…the courts should be loath to interfere with the exercising of that discretion, and of its mandate, absent compelling evidence that it is doing so in some improper manner.”
Counsel for the intervener Attorney General of Ontario, Susan Reid of Toronto, told The Lawyers Weekly the decision largely reflects existing practice in Ontario. Nevertheless the ruling remains “very helpful” since it clearly sets out the test and factors for courts to consider when determining whether to permit withdrawal for non-payment of fees, and also gives “very clear” guidance on how the issue of non-payment intersects with the scope of solicitor-client privilege, Reid said.
The Supreme Court’s judgment lays out the path for challenging a court’s refusal to permit a lawyer to withdraw. If the refusal originates in a provincial or territorial court, the decision goes to superior court. A refusal originating in superior court may be appealed straight to the top court under s. 40 of the Supreme Court Act.
The Supreme Court went on to allow the Crown’s appeal from a Yukon Court of Appeal decision granting the request of Whitehorse legal aid clinic lawyer Jennie Cunningham to be removed from the record, because her client’s legal aid certificate was revoked about six weeks before his scheduled preliminary hearing on three charges of sexually assaulting a six-year-old.
Through no fault of Cunningham’s, her client’s legal aid certificate was revoked because he failed to inform legal aid that he had resumed employment. Legal aid staff counsel are contractually barred from representing accused without legal aid certificates.
Justice Rothstein said Cunningham’s appeal was moot because the charges against her ex-client are concluded. Moreover, there was insufficient information on the record to enable a court to decide on the merits whether refusing her request to withdraw would be justified.
Setting out general principles, Justice Rothstein stipulated it “is not appropriate for the court to refuse withdrawal where an adjournment will not be necessary, nor where counsel seeks to withdraw for ethical reasons.”
However when exercising its discretion on an “untimely” withdrawal request for non-payment of fees, he explained the court should consider a non-exhaustive list of factors: whether it is feasible for the accused to represent himself or herself; other means of obtaining representation; impact on the accused from delay in proceedings, particularly if the accused is in custody; conduct of counsel, e.g. if counsel gave reasonable notice to the accused to allow the accused to seek other means of representation, or if counsel sought leave of the court to withdraw at the earliest possible time; impact on the Crown and any co‑accused; impact on complainants, witnesses and jurors; fairness to defence counsel, including consideration of the expected length and complexity of the proceedings; and the history of the proceedings, e.g. if the accused has changed lawyers repeatedly.
Justice Rothstein also emphasized that “harm to the administration of justice” is not a matter of mere administrative inconvenience. Rather it recognizes that complainants, witnesses, jurors and society at large are affected by prolonged proceedings.
source page:http://www.lawyersweekly.ca/index.php?section=article&articleid=1137
SAINATH DEVALLA
(Expert) 06 May 2012
Dear Mr.Singh,
After going through your query,I was really taken aback,knowing the fate of a Retd.Wing Commander.There are free legal aid centres right from Delhi to a remote Village panchayat.But to be eligible you wll have to satisfy the criteria mentioned by Mr.Mishra.You must be drawing pension.Locally contact a good hearted lawyer who will be kind enough to represent your case.
SANJAI KUMAR SINGH
(Querist) 06 May 2012
Dear Mr. Ashutosh,
Thank you for taking the time off to give me guidance and go to all that trouble. I really am grateful.
I have gone through the info that you have sent but unfortunately I do not fulfill any of the criterion given therein. Sad, but true. Nevertheless I am going to try but the chances appear to be very slim. Therefore I would request you to talk to some of your colleagues if they would be willing to help me out, purely out of Humanitarian considerations. It is very demeaning, I know, but then do I have a choice? So, please do give it a try.
With my regards, S.K.Singh
SANJAI KUMAR SINGH
(Querist) 06 May 2012
Dear Mr. Devalla,
thank you for your sympathies.Mine is a long sordid story of the ills of trusting people a bit too much.Yes, I do get a pension, but unfortunately most of it goes towards paying Lawyers and other unavoidable committments, hence this state of penuiry.such is destiny. with regards, SKSingh
Adv.R.P.Chugh
(Expert) 06 May 2012
I'll take it up as a pro bono defence case.
ashutosh mishra
(Expert) 06 May 2012
Sir!
Brother Bharat Chug is a promising and intelligent lawyer who is ready to serve your cause without fees.He is from Delhi.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 06 May 2012
appoint mtr chugh . he is well vered in law and would be an idel counsel for your case
Nu.Delhi.Law.Fora.
(Expert) 06 May 2012
Dear Sir,
You may directly approach Supreme Court Legal Services Committee (providing legal aid to poor and needy based on certain criterion)or SC Medium Income Group Legal Aid Society for MIG group people which you may see from
http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/mig.htm. details criteria is appended therein.
This is absolutely free.
I am also on panel of SC MIG Legal Aid Society.
For any further advice, please feel free to contact.
Rabin Majumder
Advocate-on-Record
Supreme Court of India
New Delhi
Nu.Delhi.Law.Fora.
(Expert) 06 May 2012
Dear Sir,
On 13/04/2012, the Petition was called on for hearing wherein Hon'ble Judge in Chamber has passed following Order which may note:
"Non appears for the petitioner nor steps have been taken by the petitioner's advocate to file affidavit with proof of service on respondent no. 1.
The matter may therefore be listed before the regular bench for orders as to whether the special leave petition
should be allowed to survive against unserved respondent no. 1 for whom steps have not been taken or the same is fit to be dismissed against unserved respondent no. 1."
Now the same may be listed before Hon'ble Division Bench for appropriate Order as per above and I guess the same is likely to be listed after vacation.
Trust this suffice.
Rabin Majumder
Advocate-on-Record
Supreme Court of India
New Delhi
V R SHROFF
(Expert) 06 May 2012
Adequate information and offer of Shri Chugh may serve your purpose. Free Legal Aid Society , and / or Govt Pleader for you should be sufficient to solve your problem .
Very sorry to know your case.
SANJAI KUMAR SINGH
(Querist) 06 May 2012
Dear Sirs’.
I have just read the various offers of help and I am at a total loss for words. I don’t want to sound like a Sentimental Old Fool, so I will leave it to you all to gauge the extent of my gratitude for the outpour of sympathy at my plight. It seems that my years of service did not go down the drain and that some people are aware of the plight of Ex Servicemen and are willing to extend a helping hand.
I will decidedly take up Mr Chug’s offer and contact him, in person, with all the relevant documents, as soon as I can (after taking due appointment of course).
Before I sign off, I would once again like to convey my gratitude to all of you for your sympathy, advice and help.
With regards, S.K.Singh
ashutosh mishra
(Expert) 06 May 2012
sir!
i have a fire in my chest against enemies you faced in your life.
SANJAI KUMAR SINGH
(Querist) 07 May 2012
Dear Sirs,
I am addressing this letter specifically to Mr.Rabin Majumdar and Mr. Bharat Chugh with the request that they may please send me their e-mail address so that I can contact them directly for getting their contact details such as Office/chamber Address and their Cell phone/ contact No’s and any other help/queries that I may need or have in pursuing this Case. My e-mail ID is ( sk7187@hotmail.com ) and my cell phone No. is ( 9982391041 ).
Thanking you, S.K.Singh
Shonee Kapoor
(Expert) 07 May 2012
Nothing left to be added.
Regards,
Shonee Kapoor
harassed.by.498a@gmail.com
